Territory Stories

Debates Day 1 - Tuesday 25 February 1992

Details:

Title

Debates Day 1 - Tuesday 25 February 1992

Other title

Parliamentary Record 8

Collection

Debates for 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994

Date

1992-02-25

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/279504

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/418786

Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 25 February 1992 Mr REED: Even if you leave 'threatened or endangered' which is not defined in your amendment, there is still the problem 'of importance to rare, threatened or migratory animals'. A tree in which a dollar bird might breed is certainly of importance to the dollar bird which is a migratory animal. It cannot breed without hollow logs and by virtue of that ... Mr Ede: Is that tree threatened or endangered? Mr REED: It does not have to be. Suffice it to say, Mr Chairman, the government does not accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause 5 agreed to. Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to. Clause 12: Mr CARTWRIGHT: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 49-2. Fines set at $2000 and $4000 maximums are far too low. Other states have set their fines at $5000 and, if we are to give this legislation any teeth, we need to increase ours drastically. As we have a $10 000 fine under the Heritage Conservation Act, I believe that we should bring these fines into line with that act. $4000 would certainly not deter anyone from doing anything drastic and corporate bodies should be fined at the much higher level of $200 000. Mr REED: I do not disagree with the member for Victoria River in relation to the general thrust of his amendment except that the penalties referred to in the bill are the same as those which exist elsewhere in the principal act and, for reasons of conformity, we propose that these penalties proceed at this level. However, I am quite prepared to take on board the honourable member's suggestions that the penalties be revised. They will be taken into account in an overall review of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. I thank him for his comments but we do not support the amendment at this time. Mrs PADGHAM-PURICH: Mr Chairman, while we are talking about future penalties for breaking the law, I would like to draw honourable members' attention to the comparison between different reprehensible acts. The member for Victoria River wants to raise this particular penalty from a $4000 to a $10 000 maximum. I would like to draw honourable members' attention to an article - I think it was in the Sunday Territorian - about a driver, who was definitely over 0.08%, who killed another person on the Stuart Highway. In fact, it was very near where I live. The driver's licence was not cancelled and it looks as though he will receive only home detention. There is something wrong with our system when the honourable member wants to fine somebody $10 000 for picking a plant and another person murders somebody and looks like receiving home detention. Amendment negatived. Clause 12 agreed to. Clause 13: Mr CARTWRIGHT: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 49-3 3652


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.