Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010 implements a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to establish a framework that enables states and territories to register interstate court-imposed fines that have a cross-border element.

States and territories will be able to enforce interstate fines in accordance with the laws of their own jurisdiction. They will no longer be able to enforce interstate fines by apprehending and imprisoning the fine defaulter.

The measures within this bill provide a cooperative solution to one of the challenges posed by our federal system, and are consistent with the federal government’s continuing commitment to ensuring early and appropriate intervention.

Specifically, the bill will repeal part 7 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992, which is commonly referred to as SEPA, which sets out the existing scheme for the recognition and enforcement of interstate court-imposed fines. The existing scheme relies exclusively on apprehension and imprisonment for the enforcement of interstate fines.

Reliance on these sanctions is no longer appropriate.

All states and territories have introduced alternative, less punitive, sanctions to enforce fines and their laws now allow for fines to be enforced by more targeted measures.

Accordingly, the bill will remove from SEPA any provisions which are inconsistent with state and territory laws that allow for alternative sanctions.

Under the new scheme, a state will be able to request the registration of a fine in the state in which a fine defaulter resides. Upon registration, that state will be able to enforce the registered fine in the same way as it would enforce a locally imposed fine. When the fine has been paid, the payment will be transferred back to the state or territory which originally imposed the fine.

I understand that, while a number of states and territories have now completely removed their courts’ authority to issue warrants of apprehension and imprisonment in relation to fine defaulters, some jurisdictions still retain these measures as a last resort.

The bill will confirm that this is no longer an option for enforcing an interstate fine, regardless of whether a state or territory still permits fines to be ‘served out’ by a penal servitude.

The amendments will also impact upon how Commonwealth fines are enforced against offenders who move between jurisdictions, because these fines will be enforced as ‘interstate’ fines in accordance with the new part 7 of SEPA.

Legislating to enable more targeted remedies, and allow what are essentially civil matters to continue to be treated within the civil justice system, is consistent with the Government’s Access To Justice Framework.

In particular, the bill promotes the application of proportionate responses and early intervention as the preferable approach, rather than allowing matters to be escalated to the point where someone is imprisoned and the state incurs enormous expense in so imprisoning them.

In conclusion, this bill will enable the states and territories to establish a scheme to recognise fines quickly, simply and efficiently and to enforce them in another jurisdiction using appropriate and targeted means. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak briefly on the Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 to implement a new part 7 to the act dealing with a simplified process of enforcing fines imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction. It should never be forgotten that the Service and Execution of Process Act, although never, so far as I am aware, a subject of acute political controversy, is one of the most fundamental machinery-of-government acts of the Australian parliament. It might not have been the first act but it was certainly one of the first acts passed by the parliament, to establish a machinery for the mutual recognition and enforcement of the orders and decrees of the courts of the various states.

This bill replaces the existing regime for arrest and imprisonment of interstate fine defaulters with the alternative sanctions available in the jurisdictions of the states and territories. As mentioned in the Bills Digest, section 112 of the Service and Execution of Process Act currently enables warrants of apprehension to be issued concerning an offender against whom a fine has been imposed and the liability has not been fully discharged. An enforcement officer may apprehend the offender and must give the offender an opportunity of paying the whole fine to the enforcement officer without delay. If the offender does not pay, the enforcement officer apprehends the person and brings them before a court, together with the warrant.

Under section 115, the court, if it is satisfied that the person is the person on whom the fine was imposed and is not satisfied that the person’s liability to pay the fine has been fully discharged, must order the person to be committed to prison to serve such period of imprisonment as specified in the order or a period of six months whichever is the shorter. Part 7 of the Service and Execution of Process Act provides a scheme for the mutual recognition between states and territories of fines imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction, which allows interstate fines to be enforced through the arrest and imprisonment of fine defaulters.

The bill seeks to implement a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General by replacing that scheme with a simplified mechanism which no longer relies on arrest and imprisonment and instead applies the less punitive sanctions that have been introduced in the various jurisdictions. Under the proposed scheme, a state or territory that is owed a fine may request enforcement in another jurisdiction. The fine is then registered in the jurisdiction in which the defaulter resides. Once registered, the fine can be enforced according to that jurisdiction’s own laws. Any money recovered is remitted to the state or territory that is owed the fine. The new scheme will apply to fines imposed after the bill’s commencement, and also to certain other pre-commencement fines—a measure that is principally targeted at persistent and recalcitrant defaulters.

The bill provides for a quicker, simpler and more efficient method of collecting interstate fines and is therefore entirely consistent with the historic role of the Service and Execution of Process Act to make the service and execution of process between the several states and territories easier and uniform. On behalf of the coalition I am happy to support the bill.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010 because the time has well and truly come to reform a number of aspects of this system as states and territories experience their own problems with the unintended consequence—if I may describe it that way—of enforcement. My mind stretches back to some of the terrible incidents that stemmed from enforcement.

Specifically, I am reminded of an incident that occurred in 1987 involving New South Wales resident Jamie Partlic, who was sent to Long Bay Prison because he had failed to pay a series of parking fines. He was sentenced to four days imprisonment. While serving his time he was assaulted. The assault was truly devastating. It left him in a coma and with permanent brain damage. All this was as a result of failing to pay parking fines. I remember at the time it triggered a wave of public and media interest in the way governments manage fine enforcement and governments were also mindful of court cases reminding prison authorities of their obligation of care.

While I wish to stress that I do not condone the failure to pay fines, we are expected to fulfil our responsibilities and obligations as citizens. However, there should be a wiser way to ensure that these obligations are fulfilled at a cost that does not exact such a heavy personal toll on people’s wellbeing. This is not an area with answers that lend themselves easily to enforcement agencies. Certainly it is a difficult matter to grapple with, especially where people refuse to pay parking or driving fines but, for example, continue to drive their vehicles illegally. In the electorate of Chifley I have experience of people placed in a position where they are unable, by virtue of their income, to pay the level of fines they owe to governments. So it is a matter of deep concern. There would be members here who have constituents in their electorates who are confronted by these problems. Obviously, there are elements of this proposed bill that will come as some relief to members of this House.

Following the matter affecting Mr Partlic, various jurisdictions re-evaluated their approach in securing fine payment without reliance upon prison sentences, limiting them to a last resort. All states and territories have now introduced alternatives, and—as the Attorney-General indicated—less punitive sanctions to enforce fines. For example, in New South Wales last year initiatives were introduced to help reduce the incidence of low-income or mentally unwell individuals finding themselves incarcerated as a result of fine default. There is also a financial imperative to reduce these instances. For example, coverage of this matter in the Sydney Morning Herald dating back to March 2009 indicated that in 2007, for example, 906 people were caught driving without a licence and were subsequently sent to jail compared with 424 in 1994. I am also mindful of the fact that it costs about $210 a day to incarcerate such prisoners.

Further, driving licence offences are also taking up more court time across the country as shown by Australian Bureau of Statistics research. Over the five years to 2009, the number of people convicted of driving licence offences had grown 61 per cent. Without doubt, something needed to be done and, as a result, within the New South Wales jurisdiction people were given the ability to volunteer at charities to have their traffic fines cancelled, an approach triggered by considerations and recommendations of the sentencing council in 2006 designed to give disadvantaged people and people on low incomes the chance to avoid jail. Volunteering to pay off fines will be done through charities including St Vincent de Paul, Youth Off the Streets and the Salvation Army. I also congratulate measures introduced to include partial write-off of debts and financial counselling. I merely mention these matters to help shine a light on the considerable work that has been dedicated in the states to devise means of avoiding incarceration for those people who are in exceptionally difficult situations and trying to deal with fine default.

The bill before us, as indicated by the Attorney-General, establishes a framework enabling states and territories to register interstate court imposed fines that have that cross-border element. In his remarks tonight the Attorney-General has clearly elaborated the way in which that would operate. I do not seek to repeat that in my contribution this evening. From what I understand, legislating to enable more targeted remedies and allow what are essentially civil matters to continue to be treated within the civil justice system is well in line with the government’s access to justice framework; and the bill itself promotes a much more proportionate response and early intervention as a preferred approach to ensure that we do not see matters escalating to serious and potentially harmful events.

The important other point worth making is that this bill along with some of the other bills that have been debated in this parliament this week—for example, the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill—demonstrate the headway that this government in conjunction with states and territories is making to ensure that our federation works more wisely, smarter and more efficiently. If states and territories and the Commonwealth—who obviously take note and learn from each other what they are doing in implementing systems and processes—can harmonise their approaches, there are clearly significant benefits to be had from a compliance and regulatory perspective, from a financial perspective and in respect of the matters before us from a societal perspective.

I commend the bill to the House and I commend the cooperation and wisdom evidenced by the efforts of various levels of government to ensure the smoother functioning of our Federation and the efforts that have been championed by the Attorney-General.

With the indulgence of the Speaker I would not mind including on the record that, on a quite separate matter, I extend my congratulations to the Canberra Capitals head coach Carrie Graf, who has won her first WNBL coach of the month award for season 2010 and 2011.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank the previous speakers for their contributions to the debate. The Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010 implements a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to replace the existing framework enabling states and territories to enforce fines imposed by a court in another jurisdiction. The new scheme facilitates a registration of court imposed fines in the jurisdiction in which the fine defaulter resides and enables them to be enforced in the same way as a locally imposed fine. Any fine payment will be transferred back to the state or territory which originally imposed the fine. When operational the new scheme will allow for quick, simple and efficient enforcement of court imposed fines across borders in the civil jurisdiction. The scheme will ensure that interstate court imposed fines are no longer enforced through the arrest and imprisonment of fine defaulters.

The SEPA Act, as I have referred to, will pick up the alternative less punitive sanctions that are now used by the states and territories to enforce their own fines. The use of more appropriate enforcement options for court imposed interstate fines accords with the government’s Access to Justice Framework. In conclusion, the measures within this bill provide a cooperative solution to one of the challenges posed by our federal system and are consistent with the federal government’s continuing commitment to resolve legal disputes using the most appropriate means. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.