31 May 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — It is a pleasure to join the debate, and I note the bipartisan support for the passage of this legislation. It is excellent to see. The intent of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Infringement Offences) Bill 2011 is to amend four acts — the Infringements and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008, the Liquor Control Reform Amendment (Party Buses) Act 2009, the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 — and, in the words of the bill itself, ‘to make minor and technical amendments to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005’.
The key objective of the bill is to extend and in many cases make permanent the arrangements relating to a series of offences to make them infringeable. Four offences that were trialled for a period of three years will become infringeable.
The offences under the Summary Offences Act 1966 are offensive behaviour and indecent language. The offences under the Liquor Control Reform Amendment (Party Buses) Act 2009 are those of consume, supply or possess liquor on unlicensed premises or permit those actions to be undertaken; and failure by a drunk, quarrelsome or violent person to leave licensed premises.
Those four offences will become permanently eligible for treatment by an infringement. Two other offences will continue to be piloted for a further 12 months: theft of goods from shops, or shop theft, to the value of $600; and wilful damage of property, once again up to $600.
As has already been said in the debate, all of those offences were part of the trial that began back in July 2008 and will expire on 30 June, only 30 days away. A further offence — the offence of permitting or allowing the unauthorised consumption of liquor on a party bus — was added to the trial in April 2010.
That offence also becomes permanently able to be enforced via an infringement notice. None of the offences that were trialled under the bill will cease to be infringements as a result of this legislation. However, as I said, the trial of the two offences — the offence of shop theft of goods less than $600 and the offence of wilful damage of less than $600 — will continue.
There are sound reasons for the continuation of the trial. Of all the offences included in the trial, they were certainly the most complex. In particular the offence of shop theft involves an element of dishonesty. Clearly that is a serious matter, and there is an argument about whether the offence should be dealt with in a manner which allows a record of that offence to appear on a person’s criminal record, which would not occur as part of an offence.
I understand that as a result, in part, of the evaluation process there is some evidence that people who commit the offence of shop theft have a broader pattern of offending and are more likely to be involved in other offences as well. There is certainly an argument in that case that says that perhaps they may well be better dealt with by a magistrate who is able to take into account all of the factors surrounding the offences rather than simply by the infringement process.
In terms of the wilful damage offence, clearly there is a victim. I pick up the point made by the member for Morwell that shop theft is often thought to be a victimless crime. As someone who was a small retailer in my own right for seven years and began my working life in the retail industry and as someone who was associated with the retail industry well before I began my working life, I am very aware of the impact of shop theft and the costs it places not so much on retailers but on the community in terms of the purchase of their goods.
If merchandise walks out the door, someone has to pay for it. If the offence is allowed to prosper, then clearly consumers end up paying for it in the form of higher prices for the goods they purchase. I make that point, and I agree that shop theft is not a victimless crime.
While shop theft may not directly affect an individual beyond the business, in terms of wilful damage there is often a specific victim, and there is certainly an argument to suggest that making an offence an infringement in effect removes the victim from the equation in terms of consideration of the impact on the victim. For that reason those two matters certainly need further consideration.
I understand that the trial data does not indicate that there are significant operational concerns surrounding those two matters, but the feedback from some of the stakeholders, including the Magistrates Court and the community sector, did raise questions about the suitability, particularly from a policy perspective, of having those offences made infringements. More information is required on that front.
The trial was monitored by the Department of Justice with the support of a steering committee. That steering committee included representatives from the Magistrates Court, the infringements court and Victoria Police, and they worked with data sourced from the Victorian infringement management database, from LEAP (law enforcement assistance program) — I am not going to say any more than that — from the courts and from the Sentencing Advisory Council. They reported to the infringements standing advisory committee, a body put together by the Department of Justice. The role of that committee is to provide advice to the government on the operation of the infringement system.
That is where the advice has come from. The committee includes representatives from Victoria Police, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, PILCH (Public Interest Law Clearing House), Youthlaw, the Magistrates Court, the Children’s Court, VicRoads, the MAV (Municipal Association of Victoria), the Department of Transport and the Department of Planning and Community Development.
There was also some consultation with community sector representatives, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, PILCH, the Financial and Consumer Rights Council and Youthlaw. It is a fairly thorough assessment. I think we have probably got the right result.
There were clearly a number of cases diverted out of the courts. That freed up some police resources and freed up the police to do other things. But given there were some 12 000 trial infringements in the last financial year of 2009–10 compared with the total number of infringements issued over the same period of some 4.7 million, it could be said it is a drop in the bucket, so it probably did not have an appreciable impact in terms of costs.
This bill and the extension of the infringement regime are important parts of the reform of justice in this state. It is a small part of the process, but it is another step forward.
I am pleased the bill has bipartisan support. I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 31 May 2011
Printer Friendly Version...