Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 4018 ..

MR KAINE (4.37): I have to say that, as a matter of principle, I support what Mr Rugendyke is trying to do. It fits in, in general, with other legislation that we have already dealt with. The purpose of all this legislation is to send a message to people that their attitudes and the way they deal with other people on the roads have to change. If not, there are severe penalties.

Having said that, I have to say that about five per cent of this Bill causes me great concern personally. I think it is the same bit that the Labor Party has concerns about; that is, the impounding or the forfeiture of somebody's property. When Mr Rugendyke tabled his amendments yesterday, which have now found their way into his Bill which we will be debating next year, I had gone through that legislation with a view to amending it. I have my copy here. I went through it in red pen and deleted all the words that talked about "and forfeiture". For example, proposed section 10(a) states:

... for a first offender to be impounded for three months unless the Court otherwise orders.

You read that in conjunction with another provision where they lose their drivers licence for three months anyway. So they lose both their licence and their car for three months on a first offence. For the second offence, the following applies:

... for a repeat offender, forfeited to the Territory unless the Court otherwise orders.

I deleted that and instead proposed:

... for a repeat offender to be impounded for a period to be determined by the Court.

In other words, the car will be impounded for a suitable period greater than three months, since it is a second offence. Again, it may tie in with the period of time during which the licence is suspended or there may be some other justification determined by the court. I went through the Bill and wherever the words "or forfeiture" appeared I deleted them. Wherever there was a provision like that, I sought to change it. I was proposing to move amendments. By bringing it forward today, it has curtailed the process. I was unable to bring amendments to the Bill that is now before us, although it would have been my preference to do so.

The other part that concerned me greatly was the proposed new section 10J in the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) about the disposal of vehicles:

The chief police officer may cause an impounded or forfeited vehicle to be offered for sale, by public auction or public tender, in the circumstances prescribed under the regulations.

That is okay, if it is an impounded vehicle and the regulations prescribe certain circumstances under which it will be sold. Then it says:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .