Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 6 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1885..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
contributions. I am aware there are a couple of amendments to debate. However, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stanhope. Are you going to table the new explanatory statement?
MR STANHOPE: Yes.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clause 4A.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.44): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name which inserts a new clause 4A [see schedule 1 at page 1927].
As I addressed in my speech earlier, I believe that we should increase the number of days from two to three. I think this would be consistent with my subsequent amendment which would require notice to be given in writing as well. I think, given we are impounding people's vehicles—it is often a prized possession and a valuable asset and often a significant proportion of their overall assets—giving written notice would be appropriate. I do not think an increase in the number of days from two to three would cause significant problems and I do not think it would significantly increase the risk of the vehicle being damaged.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (11.46): The government understands the intent of the amendments that Mr Coe proposes for the opposition but we believe that each of the amendments that have been proposed actually works against the essential general intent of the bill. The government is seeking to streamline and provide clarity and indeed provide assistance to city rangers in relation to the process for notification and the time frames in which a vehicle can be appropriately dealt with. I understand the essential sympathy that the opposition seeks to bring to the issue but we believe that it militates against the qualities that we are seeking to achieve in the intent of the bill.
Through the current process, which is to provide written notice, rangers have all of those other issues that I addressed in relation to the uncertainties about whether or not notification is received in any event and the ambiguity that two methods of notification would provide. Which form of notification is to prevail in the event that there is written notification and notification on the windscreen? It appears to us that it essentially maintains some of the confusion or the difficulty which our rangers currently face and, as I say, it works against the general intent of the bill.