Page 1886 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Similarly, the proposal to extend the period of notification from two to three days, again, simply negates a central purpose of the bill and we do not believe, in relation to the issues that rangers currently face, that to actually move a day back out to three days would allow the legislation, as amended by the bill the government has introduced, to be as effective as if the bill is left as is.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.48): While the Greens support the intentions behind Mr Coe’s amendments, for the reasons which have also been outlined by Mr Stanhope, we are not confident they will actually achieve their desired outcome and so we will not be supporting them.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.48): Of course I do disagree with both the government and the Greens on this issue. As I said in my speech, I do not think that sending a letter would put in jeopardy the original notice as put on the car. I think the letter could make that very clear and could state that this is just simply a notification, as a courtesy, that your car has been officially noted as a potentially abandoned vehicle. Given we are talking about substantial assets, I think increasing the number of days from two to three to accommodate this is quite reasonable and should be adopted by the Assembly.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.49), by leave: I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1927].
Amendments negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.50): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1928]. As I mentioned in the in-principle debate, my amendments are very minor and seek only to provide more information to the public about the abandoned vehicle process.
The first amendment requires some extra information to be included on the notice which is placed on the abandoned vehicle. It would say that it is an offence for a person to remove or interfere with the notice if they are not the registered operator or owner. It should be easy to include this information on the notice and would alert anyone who might interfere with the notice that there would be a penalty for doing this. Clearly, we do not want people removing the notices from abandoned vehicles.
The second amendment is very similar to the first. It simply requires that, when a vehicle is impounded and a notification letter is sent out, the letter includes information about the penalty for not providing information about the registered owner. The bill already sets out the other information that must go in the letter and so I think this is a small, sensible addition so that people know what the penalties are for not doing the right thing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .