Page 1877 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My inquiries to the department, through the Chief Minister’s office, reveal that part of developing a reasonable suspicion involves the officer conducting a vehicle registration check. If an owner can be identified, the ranger’s office will call or visit the owner. If no contact is made, then the notice will be affixed. This also allays my concern that an officer might use the new streamlined process to slap abandoned vehicle notices on vehicles without first going to proper efforts to find the owners. A vehicle owner is already likely to have a number of free days of their vehicle sitting in public before the notice is affixed.
These considerations lead me to the decision that the amendments put forward in the government’s bill are appropriately balanced. They also lead me to believe that change in the notification method and increasing the time before the vehicle may be removed, as per Mr Coe’s amendments, are not the best approach. In addition, Mr Coe’s amendments would potentially reintroduce notification by mail that could potentially occur at two different times. I think that this could cause administrative difficulties and possibly frustrate both the rangers and the owners of vehicles, who could easily misunderstand what constitutes notification.
Nevertheless, I want to put on the record my concern that the government and empowered officers remain cautious about how they exercise these types of powers. This is particularly so in the context of a bill like this, which is basically about fast-tracking the removal of property. Some discretion will always be needed to ensure that the exercise of these powers does not cause adverse outcomes. No-one wants, for example, a person to lose their rare, prized vehicle because it was impounded and then auctioned off following a series of unfortunate events and miscommunications. Likewise, I understand that in the past citizens have had to appeal to their local members after unusual circumstances resulted in threats to impound their vehicles.
I will point out one other good amendment made by this bill. The proposed new section 12F removes the element of strict liability for an offence committed if the person was the registered operator of an abandoned vehicle and does not provide information about the owner of the vehicle. This is a sensible amendment. Strict liability offences should be used sparingly as they potentially warp the foundational principles of criminal justice. The 12F offence is a circumstance where I believe it is appropriate to consider the reasonableness of a person’s belief.
I am also pleased to see that the government has taken on board the majority of comments from the scrutiny of bills committee regarding the explanatory statement. The revised statement is clearer. Explanatory statements often seem to have been drafted without a lot of thought for the reader, but clear and unambiguous explanatory statements are very important in demystifying the law for the public. They are also necessary to explain the operation and intention of the act for the Assembly and for judicial interpretation.
On this note I will briefly mention my minor amendments, which also seek to clarify the processes set out in the bill and to ensure the public receives proper information about the laws. The bill introduces a penalty for interfering with a notice placed on an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .