Page 6144 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: I understand that it is the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 5, Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1991. There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating Executive business, order of the day No. 4 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 5.
MR DUBY (10.44): The Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) certainly is long overdue. As members will be aware, it amends the Motor Traffic Act 1936 and, in conjunction with the Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), provides for fine default for traffic infringement notices. This flows on from the initiative which was originally moved by the Alliance Government, I believe, which also allowed for fine default for parking infringement notices to be brought into place rather than allow for the ultimate sanction of people being sent to gaol for failure to pay fines.
We are all aware of the tragic circumstances which have led to this action being taken in New South Wales and other jurisdictions as well as in the ACT. I think all members of the Assembly will support this Bill.
MR COLLAERY (10.45): Mr Speaker, the Rally supports this amendment. It is an anachronism to gaol people - and probably an uneconomic sanction at that - for non-payment of traffic fines. The amendment simply further modernises this great compendium of law called the Motor Traffic Act which hopefully - I am sure the Attorney agrees - we will modernise throughout when the capacity of self-government has reached that stage. It is another legacy, but it is being sequentially improved. The ACT moves to have a good system, with the effective support of the department administering it, particularly the Motor Vehicle Registry.
I want to mention one matter here, particularly on the eve of the Christmas holidays. I do not know about other members, but I know that people are finding out that their registration was cancelled months before because of an unpaid parking fine. This is particularly difficult when commercial hiring companies do not know about the fine that one of their hirers got and when there has been a problem about the registered address of the company so that mail has gone out to a registered address of a company, not necessarily to those who directly administer the motor vehicle leasing. Also, a large number of private contractors who have companies registered at the addresses of their accountants or lawyers can miss the parking fines. There can be red tape with dual postages. I commend to the Motor Vehicle Registry a review of this situation.
If people are ringing up and being told, "Your registration was cancelled four months ago", it is scandalous. A scheme should be introduced to effectively ensure that such a vehicle is marked with a sticker or identified in some way, or there should be some system through the parking
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .