Senator CHAMARETTE(5.33 p.m.) —I have been baffled by the numbering system. I would like a little clarification whether this is to insert the public consultation clause at item 115, page 53.

The CHAIRMAN —I was looking at page 35, Senator, to insert 82A.

Senator CHAMARETTE —That is fine, I now understand. My amendments 10 to 22 are all amendments involved with the prison sanctions that are in the current act and my desire to amend them—

Senator Hill —Amendments 10 to 21.

Senator CHAMARETTE —Yes. I think that is because 10 to 21 refer to prison penalties being converted to fines. But there is a rationale for those amendments that leads on to amendment 22 which imposes what I believe are much more appropriate sanctions. So amendments 10 to 22 actually involve what I believe are more appropriate penalties for—

The CHAIRMAN —There is no problem if you wish to move 10 to 22 inclusive altogether, Senator.

Senator CHAMARETTE —That is what I thought I would do. Therefore, I seek leave to move my amendments 10 to 22 together.

Leave granted.

Senator CHAMARETTE —I move:

10.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 41 (lines 26 to 27), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

11.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 42 (line 7), omit "merits criminal punishment", substitute "merits punishment under this section".

12.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 42 (lines 17 to 18), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

13.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 43 (lines 11 to 12) omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

14.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 43 (line 22), omit "merits criminal punishment", substitute "merits punishment under this section".

15.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 44 (lines 1 to 2), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

16.   Schedule 1, item 105, Page 44 (lines 28 to 29), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

17.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 45 (line 8), omit "merits criminal punishment", substitute "merits punishment under this section".

18.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 45 (lines 18 to 19), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units".

19.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 46 (line 2), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty points".

20.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 46 (line 10), omit "merits criminal punishment", substitute "merits punishment under this section".

21.   Schedule 1, item 105, page 46 (line 23), omit "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years", substitute "a fine not exceeding 100 penalty points".

22.   Schedule 1, page 35, after item 82 (after line 16), insert:

82A After section 24:

Insert:

Revocation of permits and related disqualifications on conviction for offence

(1) The Minister must, by written notice given to the person who is the holder of a Basel permit or a special permit, revoke the permit if the person is convicted of an offence under section 39, 40, 40A, 40B or 41A.

(2) The revocation takes effect on the day on which the written notice is given to the person.

(3) A written notice must include a statement of the reasons for the revocation.

(4) Where a person's permit is revoked under subsection (1) the Minister must not consider an application to grant the person a permit until the expiration of a period, not exceeding 5 years, determined by the Minister.

(5) Where:

   (a)   a natural person's permit is revoked under subsection (1); or

   (b)   a natural person is convicted of an offence under section 39, 40, 40A, 40B or 41A;

the Minister must not grant a permit to, or must as soon as practicable revoke the permit of, as the case may be, a body corporate of which the person is or becomes an executive officer (within the meaning of subsection 40B(6)).

"(6) Where subsection (5) applies, the Minister must not consider an application to grant the body corporate a permit until the expiration of a period, not exceeding 5 years, as determined by the Minister.

Of course, I would be more than happy if anyone in the chamber wishing to support my amendment 22 dealt with it separately. But, as I am not in that happy position, I have moved the amendments together and I will speak to them together. I would ask to be alerted as to whether any senators in the chamber intend to support the new penalties which I wish to put in place as part of my package.

Senator Faulkner —Keep batting on, Senator.

Senator CHAMARETTE —It is one of these in honour of St Jude amendment packages. Perhaps the government should take it up in relation to Telstra, as St Jude is the patron saint of lost causes. But here I go with penalties.

Amendments 10 to 21 address the issue of prison penalties. Imprisonment is mentioned in several different paragraphs—12 of them to be precise—in the bill. Phrases used include: `imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years', `merits criminal punishment', and `imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years'.

So, basically, the criminal sanctions in this bill relate to two years or five years imprisonment. As people will know well, I have an opposition to prison penalties being used as a measure of first resort than last resort, which is what they should be. The reason why I believe that imprisonment is not appropriate and that fines are more appropriate is that they have a different scale of operation and enable a conviction without overusing imprisonment.

People should be aware that prisons destroy lives and they are needed in very extreme cases where the community requires physical protection or the person involved is a physical danger. In such cases prison is worth contemplating. But it has been overused in a coercive, threatening or deterrent way in our community and is not the best possible penalty to impose.

My amendments all revolve around the principle that penalties should be relevant to the offence under consideration. The threat of imprisonment does not form an effective response to hazardous waste offences and is simply not effective in protecting the community from the dangers of hazardous waste.

The case of corporations and individuals committing offences related to hazardous waste is a clear example of non-violence as an effective strategy for change. If we simply responded to hazardous waste offences by tossing the people responsible in gaol, whilst not addressing the inherent system that allows the offences to occur, we would achieve nothing. If we simply give a corporation or an individual a fine as retribution we end up in the patently undesirable position of those bodies, in effect, paying for permission to pollute and maim with toxic wastes. The end result is that companies simply budget for fines and continue on their merry way.

I can understand that people have some concerns that we are taking prison penalties out of the bill and replacing them with fines. I hope I have explained that the underlying reason for this amendment is that prison should be a penalty of last resort. The coalition government in Western Australia purports to see the wisdom of this principle. As I mentioned earlier, the rationale is that imprisonment is not an effective form of punishment or deterrent, for the vast number of well documented reasons I have mentioned, and only has a place in the justice system in that it can be used to protect the community from individuals who pose direct physical danger to the community or to themselves.

You may argue that hazardous waste is one of the most direct physical dangers to a community. I would argue that if you only imprison one individual from a corporation without actually touching the operation of that corporation, and by so doing hope to threaten or frighten a corporation into not being prepared to sacrifice their managing directors for the good cause of their profits and practice, it would not be me who would be accused of being naive.

The principle is obvious. I want to retain penalties for those offences but transfer them to the more appropriate penalty of fines. A conviction and the penalty of a fine will cause damage to individuals' reputations and careers. There is no doubt about that. They may not cause as much damage as a term of imprisonment would. If that conviction is there and it is accompanied with the amendment No. 22 components that I have referred to I believe that is a far more effective way of dealing with offences under the Hazardous Waste Act.

The penalty is the revocation of permits and the related disqualification upon conviction of the offence. What happens is that if an individual is convicted of an offence under sections 39, 40, 40A, 40B or 41A then the minister must in writing revoke the permit given to the holder of the Basel permit or special permit. The revocation takes effect on the day on which the written notice is given to the person. A written notice must include a statement of the reasons for the revocation.

Where a person's permit is revoked, under subsection 1 the minister must not consider an application to grant the person a permit until the expiration of a period, not exceeding five years, to be determined by the minister. This applies where a natural person's permit is revoked under subsection 1 or a natural person is convicted of an offence under sections 39 to 41A. This also applies to the body corporate. The minister must not consider an application to grant the body corporate a permit until the expiration of a period, not exceeding five years, as determined by the minister.

I have replaced the five-year imprisonment hollow threat that may never get carried out with a five-year penalty that is appropriate to the crime. It is a crime for a corporation or an individual who has a degree of responsibility in the corporation to impose a hazardous waste threat on the community. It is appropriate that the penalty that they receive fits the crime. Nothing will prevent damage to the environment less than penalties which are seen as token penalties.

The effective alternative to the old model of imprisonment and fines is to recognise that penalties must embody three principles—they must be immediate, they must be appropriate and they must be seen to be fair. That is why, in line with these principles, our model proposes the immediate revocation of Basel or special permits for offences under particular sections of the bill from the day of ascertainment of the convictions. This revocation must be accompanied by written notice stating the reasons. Basel or special permits will then not be re-issued to that person or the company of which that person is or becomes an executive officer for a time determined by the minister, but not exceeding five years.

Despite the fact that I have already had advance notice that my colleagues are not going to be persuaded by my arguments, I want to put on the public record that we cannot continue to maintain in our legislation offences that are meaningless, offences that are ineffective and penalties that do not address the problems that they purport to address. I believe serious consideration should be given to amendments 10 to 22 and I seek the support of the chamber for them.