Page 1875 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When we are talking about the potential for government to be confiscating someone’s private property, we must be careful to ensure that we do not unfairly or unreasonably impinge on their rights. To this end, the opposition also proposes some modifications to the new legislative scheme. The first modification will be to require that when a notice is placed on a vehicle TAMS sends a copy of that notice in the post if there is a registered operator. This will give the registered operator another opportunity to be informed about the imminent removal of the car and to be able to remove it before it costs them money to obtain it from the retention area. The requirement to provide written notice, in my amendment, does not change the legal effect of notice being given when the notice is attached to the car. This will ensure that city rangers have sufficient certainty as to the time limit for the car to be removed.
The second modification will be to change the time period between notice and removal from two days to three days. This will provide an opportunity for a registered owner who receives notice in the mail to remove the car before either the territory or the owner incurs the cost of it being impounded. Whilst this is an extended period on what has been proposed, I believe it is a sensible initiative to give people a better opportunity to remove their cars, should they not be abandoned.
These amendments are a sensible compromise. They meet the government’s objectives by ensuring a better defined time frame for the removal of abandoned cars and also ensuring that written notice is posted to a registered operator as soon as possible, as is the case currently.
I understand the Greens will be moving some amendments in relation to information to include on the notice, and the opposition will be supporting these. The new information the Greens propose to include on the notices will also be included in the written notice sent to the registered operator. I will move my amendments later in the debate.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.12): The Greens will support the changes made by the Roads and Public Places Amendment Bill. We will, however, propose two clarifying amendments to the bill, which I will introduce during the detail stage. I understand from Mr Coe’s comments that he will propose amendments to the bill. While the Greens support Mr Coe’s intention with these amendments, which is to protect property owners, we believe that, on balance, the amendments are not necessary.
As is now required under the standing orders due to the Greens-Labor agreement, we are debating the bill in this sitting period rather than the sitting period in which the government introduced the bill. This change has allowed us to scrutinise the legislation properly, to review the remarks from the scrutiny of bills committee and to consult with the community. I can say, for example, that representatives of road users such as the NRMA and the Council of ACT Motor Clubs have had time to give feedback to us. They are content with the legislation and I am comfortable with supporting it.
The bill proposes to change the process by which government officers can remove abandoned vehicles from public places. Under the bill an officer would be able to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .