Page 2445 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is important to remember that parking fines are for a breach of the law. I would like to say that they are not the same as telephone and electricity bills or any other bills that we may have. There is no moral obligation to send a reminder notice. The Government will oppose Mr Stefaniak's foreshadowed amendment as the cost of sending reminder notices is quite high and will not be recovered in most cases.
The Government also rejects Mr Stefaniak's amendment which suggests that motorists who fail to receive a parking infringement notice - for example, if the notice is taken off the vehicle - will be unfairly penalised. Mr Moore or Mr Duby - I am not sure which - raised that concern. My advice is that the parking notices are placed securely under windscreen wipers so the chance of their being blown off is very small, although it could happen. We are not saying it does not.
I accept that there are occasions when another motorist removes a notice to place it on his or her own vehicle in the hope of confusing parking inspectors. Mr Speaker, I asked a parking inspector about that and I was told, "If we are on that run the same day we remember whose wipers we put it under". They said, "We have got very good memories. We would then open it up and have a look and, if the number on it does not match the car, then we write another parking fine and, if the car it has been taken off is still there, we put it back where it should be". Our parking inspectors are incredibly bright people. They know exactly what people are up to.
However, my advice from my department is that this happens rarely. Parking inspectors always check notices on vehicles in such circumstances. If it has been placed on a vehicle it does not belong on, it is placed on the correct one it was written out for. However, there is a provision in the Bill which will cover such circumstances. Clause 21, page 9, line 18 provides the registrar of motor vehicles with the discretion to extend the initial payment date. Therefore, if the infringer establishes that he or she did not receive the notice, the registrar can effectively waive the administration fee. Of course, if the registered owner receives the final notice and he was not the infringer, he can submit a statutory declaration naming the driver of the vehicle at the time the infringement notice was issued.
If the car is stolen, the Act already provides for a notice to be withdrawn, so there is no fee there. The administration fee proposed only defrays the cost. I thank Mr Duby for his wisdom in realising that all associated costs in following up parking fines should be borne by the infringer and not the ACT taxpayer generally. Mr Duby was correct in relation to the number of people who defend cases in the court. It is about a thousand a year. However, approximately 28,000 summonses are sent out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .