Estimates - Attorney-General - Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act

Ms BURNET - I've got a two-part question, and I'll just see how that goes with the other independents. Attorney-General, the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 is now over 20 years old, and you've recently tabled an amending bill, which I understand followed an internal review by the Department of Justice. Can you confirm prior to drafting that amending bill, you or your department consulted with any external stakeholders specifically about how the act should be improved? I just want to be clear, I'm not referring to consultation on the bill after it had been released, but consultation undertaken at the earlier stage identifying reform priorities. 

Mr BARNETT - The Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005, we do have as you've noted reform agenda. I put on record my thanks to Wayne Johnson for his work as the director and he's very capable team and it's been successful frankly in recuperating high levels of debt since it commenced in 2008: $26.3 million in 2025; $21.4 million collected up to 31 March this financial year, and more than $363 million collected by the service since 2008. Total debt outstanding on 31 March was $76.6 million. I just draw that to your attention. I think the legal framework for collecting those debts is important and that's why we've introduced those reforms. 

Ms BURNET - Point of order. That's not really the question. It's around that consultation that the bill, which is not what you're talking about, Attorney-General. 

Mr BARNETT - In terms of the consultation on the bill and it's more of an operational matter. I'll see if the secretary or the relevant deputy can assist the honourable member.

Ms BOURNE - Through you, deputy. I don't have specifics in front of me in terms of the time-frames, but I would expect that in accordance with the department's ordinary consultative approach with pieces of legislation, we would absolutely be consulting on the bill through the Department of Justice website and the have your say functionality. 

Ms BURNET - Again, just a point of clarification, if I might. It's not about referring to consultation after the bill was being released, but it was it was the internal, like the consultation with any external stakeholders specifically about how the act should be improved prior to drafting that amending bill. 

Mr BARNETT - I'll pass to the secretary. We're into continuous improvement in our government. We have an agenda for reform. We want to make things better. We obviously take advice from the Director, Wayne Johnson, who I mentioned before, and thank him for his service. The ordinary course of events is targeted and/or public consultation. In terms of the advice before the bill was publicly consulted, I'll check with the secretary. 

Ms BOURNE - Thanks, deputy. It's my understanding that consideration has been given to a range of issues to inform the draft consultation bill, including safety measures rather for enforcement officers, noting that a similar bill had been consulted on early in 2020, so we were able to use a lot of that feedback as well to inform the draft that's gone forward. As the deputy said, a great deal of that would have come from MPEAs itself.

Ms BURNET - I've got a follow-up question in relation to the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act. I want to ask about the use of community service as a pathway for people to expiate their fines. While the act provides for this in theory, in practice it appears to be rarely used. The department's annual reports indicate that over the past three years, only seven offenders - approximately 0.001 per cent, finalised their debts through community service, compared with over 350,000 debts finalised through other means, predominantly monetary repayment. In jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Victoria, work and development orders or permits allow people to discharge fine debt through activities such as drug and alcohol treatment, education, vocational training, counselling or other rehabilitative programs. Given those examples, minister, would you consider introducing a similar, more flexible work and development scheme in Tasmania to expand genuine non-financial pathways for people to resolve their fine debt? 

Mr BARNETT - Thank you very much for the question. It's a very good one, but also very specific, so I'd ask if Wayne Johnson, director of the MPES (Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service), might come to the table and assist the honourable member in the committee accordingly. 

Mr JOHNSON - Yes, there's capacity for people to apply to perform monetary penalty community service orders as an alternative. It's actually listed on the form - a paper form that they can fill out and send in. It's also on our website. And, of course, it's also in the act. You're quite right. The reality is that we have very, very few applications. Proceeding matters coming to us, of course, we get a lot of matters from the court. They can also be considered, the magistrate of the judge, as part of the sentencing process, to be considered for community service orders. So, there would be a cohort there that might already be doing or performing community service orders. Infringements that come to us are a different cohort, but there is that option there, yes. Why people don't take it up, I don't know the answer to that. 

Ms BURNET - Maybe they don't know about it. 

Mr JOHNSON - We could probably publicise it some more, but it is on the website, it is in the act, which perhaps not a lot of people refer to. Certainly, if it's raised with our staff, it's something which is followed through with.