Page 2183 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know that the original bill has been altered in its new iteration to accommodate some of the government’s concerns about the actual administration of some of the payments and waiver options put forward. For example, rather than the onus being on the RTA, who are not qualified or well resourced enough for this task, the responsibility to administer these options will fall to the director-general. We still feel, however, that this is fraught with issues. We have been assured that the regulations will follow and that loose ends will be tied up. We also note the commencement date was put forward to a year, which was another concession made to the government.
I will now turn to the opposition’s specific views on what is before us. Whilst the Canberra Liberals are supportive of aspects of the legislation, there are other aspects which we will not be able to support today. Firstly, let me advise the Assembly that the Canberra Liberals are supportive of the principle to pay off fines by instalments and I commend this aspect of the legislation. The Canberra Liberals have been approached by Canberrans concerned about the lack of flexibility to pay fines and this bill will address that.
However, we should note that the Canberra Liberals believe that financial penalties are an appropriate measure to penalise and hopefully deter wrongdoing. However, there are other aspects of the bill which we do have various problems with. These problems vary from a disagreement with the underlying philosophy in some instances, and in other instances a problem with the administration of the scheme.
For example, the waiving of fines in special circumstances is something which we do not agree with. We think that such an option is not fair and sends the wrong message to our community. Whilst I acknowledge that financial penalties can be particularly harsh for some people, there are other options, some put forward in this bill, which would be more appropriate.
The payment of fines by community work or social development programs—that is, in effect, a community-based order—is fine in principle. But we must have the details of such a scheme laid out in this legislation so that we as legislators can comprehend what is being proposed. I am concerned that the bill is too light on detail and leaves far too much up to regulations and the bureaucracy for determination. Whilst there is merit in such orders, I believe it is irresponsible to pass legislation which does not clearly articulate how the scheme will be carried out.
The feature of the bill to have a licence reinstated is consistent with other elements of the bill. However, as it is, in effect, a sequential feature, the other issues I have already highlighted prevent the opposition from endorsing this aspect. If it is the will of the Assembly, I would be willing to continue the discussion with the government and crossbench to work on better legislation for a later sitting week. However, from my discussions and through the debate in the chamber today, I understand that this is not the will of the Assembly.
I am appreciative of the offer by the Attorney-General to work with the government on the development of regulations. However, as I have already said, I believe the Assembly is the best place to have that discussion. If this bill is passed today,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video