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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1142 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

registration lapse while they are away from Canberra will be disadvantaged by this scheme.

What about somebody who is ill and may not be able to drive for a period? Are those the people Mr Rugendyke is talking about not managing their own finances? This proposal is just not equitable. From a social equity perspective, there would be low-income people in the community who could not afford to reregister their vehicle when it fell due. Apparently we are going to penalise those people too. They may want to put off the registration payment as a way of saving money and use alternative transport during the time their car is off the road. Under this scheme, if these people pay within three months, they will end up paying for the full period of the registration anyway. If they pay after three months, they will have to go through the hassle of getting a new registration. That does not seem very fair at all.

My office also had a call from the operator of a used car yard who was concerned that this proposal disadvantaged him. At present, if he has a car in his yard whose registration has expired, he would not pay for the renewal until he has a buyer for the car, because there is no point in paying registration on a car that is sitting in his car yard. However, under this new scheme, if he reregisters the vehicle upon sale, he may have to pay for up to three months registration even though the car was sitting in his yard. Once again, I thought of Mr Rugendyke supporting small business. It appears that this change is really about raising revenue.

Mr Rugendyke: Why are you picking on me?

MS TUCKER: Mr Rugendyke feels that I am picking on him. I guess I just find quite offensive and interesting in a way the position that Mr Rugendyke takes in this place on certain issues. Yesterday, people who use the buses were the lowest common denominator. Today, apparently, people who do not have money need to be punished for that. It appears that this change is really about raising revenue.

I find it interesting that, even though the registration is to be backdated if it is paid during the three months after it lapses, late payment of the registration will not remove the potential for the driver of the vehicle to incur a traffic infringement notice for driving an unregistered vehicle during the time the registration was unpaid. The infringement will not be set aside by the late payment of registration. The government wants to have it both ways. They want you to pay for continuous registration, but they still want the ability to fine you if you drive your vehicle before you have renewed the registration.

In fact, the government seems to be encouraging people to drive unregistered vehicles by its other initiative to send out new registration labels with registration renewal notices, rather than waiting until people have paid the registration renewal. I do not think that the government has adequately demonstrated a valid need for this change and I certainly will not be supporting this regulation. Just to clarify that, I will be supporting the disallowance but not the regulation.

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