Page 3019 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
centres and our community-based schools. I think that that is where our strengths lie. Development approvals are a part of that, but the bigger job is in the bigger picture.
I am thankful for my ability as a member of the pack to be involved in this inquiry because I learned a lot about the system, I learned where the complaints are and I learned how ACTPLA justifies its responses. I really look forward to debating the planning reform legislation. Having read the community and other submissions, it is easy to see that there is work to be done. I appreciate that the legislation has been tabled as a draft and that there is room for those changes to be made. I hope that this report will feed into that. Yes, Mr Mulcahy, people do talk; you did too. Thank you very much for the opportunity, especially thanks to Andrea Cullen, who has just been a fantastic secretary and a real pleasure to work with.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Executive business—precedence
Ordered that executive business be called on.
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2006
Debate resumed from 8 June 2006, on motion by Mr Stanhope:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.24): The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2006 has been introduced by the minister to clarify the period the Chief Police Officer is required to keep vehicles seized in relation to the commission of certain dangerous driving offences. Section 10B of the act provides that, if the court convicts a person or finds them guilty of one of these offences, for a first offender the vehicle is impounded for a maximum of three months, unless the court otherwise orders.
Clause 4 of the bill amends section 10E (1) of the act to enable the Chief Police Officer to release a vehicle three months after the date it was seized in the case of a person who would not be treated as a repeat offender should they come before the court, that is, if a person has not been convicted or found guilty of a relevant offence in the previous five years. In other words, if court action is delayed for more than three months, the offender’s vehicle can be released if they have not yet gone before the courts and it is the first offence. Under section 10B (5), any period for which the vehicle has been impounded by police under section 10C is deducted from the three-month period applicable to a first offender.
Currently, section 10E of the act provides that the CPO—the Chief Police Officer—must keep the vehicle until the person is dealt with by a court for the offence, unless an infringement notice is served on the alleged offender or no prosecution of the offence is started within 28 days after seizure and 28 days has elapsed. So what used to be an expected delay of 28 days for a matter to appear before the courts has been extended to three months under this bill. It seems that the existing provisions of the act do not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .