 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
SHOP THEFT (ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT) BILL
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In our view, this bill is a positive step and we support its general thrust. The bill seeks to set up an alternative procedure for dealing with shop theft cases where the retail value of the goods stolen is less than $150. This would apply only when the accused admits to being guilty and the victim agrees to the alternative procedure. If one or both of these conditions do not occur, then the current method of prosecution applies.
In the case of theft of an item worth less than $30, the accused person is given an infringement notice by the attending police officer and will need to admit to the offence, apologise to the victim and return the goods or pay the retail value. The option is also open to the accused to do this within 48 hours of receiving the infringement notice. In the case of the theft of an item worth between $30 and $150 a similar arrangement exists, except that the accused must wait the 48 hours to consider his position. In addition, if the accused chooses to admit to the offence, return the item and offer an apology, he must also complete community service equalling one hour for every $5 value of goods stolen. This gives an effective minimum of six hours and a maximum of 30 hours of community service. I read with interest the comments made by other members in regard to this bill, and I support the questions raised by the Hon. Carolyn Pickles and will be keen to hear the Attorney's response to those as he sums up the debate. In addition to this, I take this opportunity to raise concerns brought to my attention by a letter that I received from the Para Districts Community Legal Service Incorporated. It, too, expresses general support for the bill. However, it raises concern about the limited time in which an alleged offender can find legal advice, and states:I must say that 48 hours does seem like a very short period of time for anyone to obtain proper legal advice. It is important that persons finding themselves in the position of having been issued with such infringement notices be well informed about their rights. I would like to hear the view of the Attorney on the possibility of extending this period and what actions will be taken to ensure that accused persons in this situation will be aware of their rights and the consequences of the decisions in this regard. The Para Districts Community Legal Service Incorporated has raised another point. In the case where the goods stolen are damaged and, therefore, under the bill the accused would have to pay the retail value of the goods, this would disadvantage those on lower incomes who may be unable to do so. I ask the Attorney to consider these matters and I suggest that more clarification is needed in regard to the procedure of paying for damaged goods. However, it is important that the emphasis is moving away from shoplifting to shop theft. It has been for generations regarded as a lesser offence, in fact, almost a sport in previous decades, and I think that we have now shifted the emphasis substantially. This is a proper course in which we are going to encourage the reporting and following through of what in relative terms are minor, albeit serious, offences. Shop owners previously felt it a deterrent to get caught up in quite an involved business hardly worth the trouble to apprehend or to cover goods of limited value. We support the second reading of the bill.We disagree with the proposed 48 hour time limit, on the basis that it is insufficient time in which to obtain proper or adequate legal advice from either a Legal Services Commission office or from a community legal service.
SHOP THEFT (ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT) BILL
(edited transcript)
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I thank members for their support for the bill. It is gratifying to see steady progress in an innovative measure which has taken time but which is the result of collaboration between partners in government and private enterprise attempting to devise a better way of dealing with a problem that affects them both in a serious way. I particularly acknowledge the Hon. Terry Cameron for his unstinting support for the bill. The Leader of the Opposition has also supported the bill and I am grateful for that support.
I also want to thank the Hon. Mr Gilfillan for his indications of support for the bill. He referred particularly to a letter from the Para Districts Community Legal Service Incorporated, which raised a number of issues, and it would be appropriate for me to read the reply that I made to Mr Aberdeen of that legal service. It best explains the response to the issues that he has raised. I thanked him for his letter and then I said:
I regret, however, that while I understand your concerns, I cannot accede to them. I can quite see your difficulty in relation to the 48 hour time period. However, the merits of the proposal depend on other policy considerations as well. One of the most important of these, in relation to its acceptability by all stakeholders, is the need to keep the procedures simple, straightforward and timely.
If it does not have these characteristics, it will not be a true alternative to the current (unsatisfactory) system and will not attract support from key stakeholders. While the scheme was devised containing an element of delay so that sober and detached reflection could take place and, if possible, legal advice taken, the fact is that the prompt (almost) `on the spot' nature of the scheme is one of its greatest drawing cards with the retail trade sector, whose cooperation is essential if any truly alternative scheme is to have the faintest chance of success.
I am of the opinion that legal aid and community services, who have consistently advocated a non-judicial diversion scheme for small amount shop stealers for many years, should embrace the chance of a truly just alternative system with benefits for the disadvantaged and adjust their services accordingly.
So far as your comments about those who have been breached by Centrelink and have no income are concerned, what you say is of course true. However, I do not see what the alternative might be. In fact, the first draft of the bill, which was sent out with the discussion paper, excluded from the `on the spot' part of the scheme those who could not return the item in merchantable form.
As a result of representations, this was altered so that there was the possibility of applying the scheme to those who could not return the item in merchantable form but could pay for it. If the person has no income and is unable to pay for the altered item, the only result is that this alternative scheme does not apply. Such a person is no worse off than he or she is now.
I cannot see that this is an unjust result. It merely represents the limits of what it is possible to do within the parameters of this kind of alternative. I hope that this innovative scheme can be given a chance to see what can be done. I would welcome your continuing feedback on how it is working in practice.
No other jurisdiction has tried something like this. I will be keeping a close and interested eye on the results of implementation should it, as expected, pass the parliament.
Bill read a second time.
In committee.
Clause 1.
