Page 2441 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
number of people in the Canberra community are in transit by virtue of both their occupation and their lifestyle. They are moving to different apartments, flats and houses, and there is a high level, as the Administration's own advisers know, of non-response to all manner of mail and other correspondences sent out to them.
I understand that at the present time 1,000 matters a month are referred to the Magistrates Court for follow-up - that is, 200 a day - and about 60 to 80 a month are actually dealt with before a magistrate. The rest are dealt with under a system called a plea by post. That is an anachronistic, difficult, time-wasting system, and we support the broad attempt by the Government to rectify that inordinate waste of money and court time. It is particularly good that the Minister proposes this measure before we take over court expenses, because we are likely to cop a big bill for that activity.
Bearing in mind that, in the budget for 1986-87, revenue raised from parking penalties was $2.64m, and, given that we have an increasing contingent of parking inspectors, we are talking about a very high overhead factor in enforcing our laws. However, the enforcement of our laws should be seen to be punitive and salutary, not revenue raising. We support the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party simply because we believe it will be more economic and there will be less cost at the end in view of the extra time given for people to adjust to the fine and the reminder.
As I understand it, the Minister's proposal has a sudden-death effect after the first period has expired. An administration fee is imposed after the first 14-day period - or 21-day period, depending on what period is selected under either the Minister's proposal or Mr Duby's proposed amendment.
The ACT community is one that is used to receiving reminder notices, and the proposal in the Bill is not in accordance with the current convention, as it were, by creditor agencies, both government and non-government. I predict serious problems. But, in my view, more serious problems will emerge in the situation where one of the large numbers of, for example, young persons in this Territory who move from one address to another fairly quickly receive no notice of any of the steps that the Minister proposes to take under the new procedures and in fact has a licence cancelled under proposed section 162E. Firstly, it is not clear to me what the position of that driver is in the hiatus between cancellation and discovery or receipt of the notice that his licence is being cancelled.
Mr Duby: He is obliged to tell the registrar of his address at all times.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Duby says that licensees are obliged to tell the registrar of their change of address. I ask every member in this Assembly whether when they last changed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .