Page 1876 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
affix a notice to the abandoned car—something like a parking ticket. This would serve as a notice for the owner. From this time the owner would have two days to remove the car. There would be additional days if the period goes over weekends or holidays. If the time expires, the car can then be impounded. At this point, written notification must be sent to the owner.
Under the current system, if a roads and public places officer suspects that a vehicle is abandoned, he or she must first write to the owner, allow time for the letter to arrive and then wait two days before the vehicle can be removed and impounded. Obviously, this can considerably extend the time before a vehicle can be removed. Initially, this existing process, which allows more time for notification, does sound sensible. The owner of a vehicle might not know, for whatever reason, that their vehicle is vulnerable to being impounded. They might have left the car somewhere while they went bushwalking or a friend might have taken the car and left it somewhere. It seems sensible that some time passes during which the owner can return to the vehicle or can learn that something is wrong and that they need to move the vehicle. I believe that that is the sentiment behind Mr Coe’s amendments.
I would be concerned if I thought the proposals in this bill would impinge on a person’s property rights by imprudently allowing the removal and impounding of vehicles. However, I believe that the changes in this bill will still implement an appropriate notification system and, at the same time, ameliorate problems that come with leaving vehicles in public places.
Perhaps the most significant problem is that abandoned cars left in public are frequently vandalised. Most of us have probably seen vehicles abandoned around the ACT and seen that they quickly attract vandals. I understand that last year eight per cent of abandoned cars in Canberra were vandalised after the notification was mailed to owners. This is quite a high risk of property damage. Even a person who is unaware that their car has been impounded would probably be thankful that it was spared from vandalism by being taken off the street. I can see that one of the government’s motivations for introducing this bill is to protect people’s property. This was also an important consideration for me when I looked at Mr Coe’s amendments, which, if passed, would add an extra day before a vehicle can be removed.
An additional benefit of placing a notice on the actual vehicle is that the public are notified that the seemingly abandoned vehicle is being dealt with. When a vehicle is in an owner’s local area, a notice on the vehicle may also alert the owner’s friends or neighbours that the rangers will be removing the vehicle. The friends or neighbours may then contact the owner.
I am also comforted by the fact that, under the existing section 12E of the act, a roads and public places officer cannot begin the abandoned vehicle process unless they suspect, on reasonable grounds, that the vehicle has been abandoned. Examples of grounds that might indicate a vehicle is abandoned include a vehicle not being registered or being in a state of disrepair or being run down and covered with dust and debris. These examples are listed in the principal act and I think it is unlikely that my or anyone else’s car would be in such a condition if I merely left it somewhere to go on an overnight bushwalk.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .