Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1048 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I read the other day that in some Asian countries, I think specifically Korea, there was a problem with children being rendered orphans, in effect, by the financial crisis. Their fathers were losing their jobs and they had mortgages and other financial obligations. In that country, apparently, when people are unable to meet their obligations and have to declare bankruptcy, it is still the law that they serve a term of imprisonment for being bankrupt. I am pleased to say that that law has long since been repealed in this country, but it illustrates how futile it is to put someone in gaol because they are financially unable to meet a certain obligation on them for whatever reason, such as fines imposed by the court or obligations such as mortgages becoming too much.

Mr Speaker, there is a class of people who, it could be said, default on these obligations not because they are unable to meet them but because they are unwilling to do so. Such people, Mr Speaker, perhaps deserve different consideration. However, the suggestion that Mr Stanhope has made in principle, concerning the capacity of the court to review that situation, deserves consideration. I have only just seen these amendments and I therefore need some time to consider them. I suggest that, once the in-principle stage has been concluded, these Bills be put over till this afternoon to give me a chance to have a look at these matters and discuss them with officers of my department.

Mr Kaine raised some questions concerning the need for fine defaulters to be aware that they are in a position where they have lost their right to drive a motor vehicle and, similarly, that once defaulters honour the debt they owe to the community the authorities are advised quickly that they have paid the obligation and are again entitled to drive a motor vehicle. I think the mechanisms to deal with that are probably in the legislation.

Members will note in my presentation speech that a quite elaborate process needs to be gone through before the enforcement mechanisms cut in. After a court has made an order to pay a fine there has to be a penalty notice sent to an offender advising the amount and the possible enforcement action. A default notice is served on the offender once the time to pay has expired and the offender is in default, giving certain information. The defaulter, if he is licensed to drive, is then subject to a decision by the registrar to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the driving licence. If he is not licensed, the registrar can make an order to suspend the defaulter's vehicle registration or ability to obtain or renew a licence. As you will see, that step comes only after a notice has been served on the defaulter. In effect, two notices will have been served on the defaulter making it clear what the consequences of failure to pay would be.

The default notice includes a requirement that the defaulter provide to the registrar detailed financial information. That information is then used by the registrar to assess what other options might be available if a fine is not paid. And there are other steps, again, before the step of imprisonment might be taken. So, Mr Speaker, the mechanisms are there to give people plenty of advice that they might be in that position. Notwithstanding that, I am sure there will be many cases where people will say, "I did not know" when they are pulled up for driving without a licence or without registration. I will ask both my department and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to monitor the situation and to identify whether there are any problems - genuine problems - with people not being properly advised of their obligations or their loss of a privilege to drive a motor vehicle.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .