Page 1339 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 April 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this new traffic infringement scheme is set out in the statute. The regulations then provide further detail of the type not appropriate for an act. It is the kind of detail that needs to be adapted to the specific implementation, and it is subject to change over time.
As an example, the bill before us today moves the detail of eligible concession cards from the act to the regulation. This is appropriate, as we do not want to have to amend an act every time the name of a concession card changes or a new type of concession becomes available. Prescribing every detail in an act would make it unworkable. In addition, it is important to remember that regulations always need to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the original act.
It is also relevant that the scheme originated from private members’ legislation, as I said, from former Greens member Amanda Bresnan. Private members do not have the power to make regulations. In order to have this improved and fairer system of traffic fine administration at all, it was necessary for the Greens to have some level of cooperation with the government.
We introduced and passed the original act, and now the government has worked on the administration and regulations. The result will be very positive for the community, and one day when Mr Coe introduces his very first bill into the Assembly—because he is, of course, in his fifth year here without ever producing any legislation—he might discover that this is how the system works.
The Liberal Party also pointed out that they have philosophical objections to the new scheme for traffic infringements. Mr Coe said, for example, that the waiving of fines in special circumstances is something the Liberal Party does not agree with. I say again that this is something the Liberal Party might want to revisit. It is extreme to say that there can never be a situation where a fine should be waived. Think of situations of severe disability or illness or homelessness—situations where enforcing a fine might have a perverse outcome. The waiver option is already available in our nearby states of Victoria and New South Wales, and it is a scheme that works well in those jurisdictions. Those states also operate successful programs to allow people to undertake working development programs in lieu of fines. This is another flexible payment option that will be available in the ACT after May.
A 2011 evaluation of the New South Wales fine system said that the working development orders and personal development orders were increasing the amount of revenue the government is collecting, reducing reoffending in the fine enforcement system, improving the participation of vulnerable people and engaging more people in drug and alcohol and mental health treatment. These are exactly the types of positive impacts we want here in the ACT. The waiver option also works hand in hand with this system, and in New South Wales the accessible and well-developed work development order scheme has reduced the number of people applying for infringement debts to be written off.
Turning to the specifics of the bill before us today, the main amendment enables a person to consolidate several outstanding infringement notice penalties into a single debt which can be managed through a single infringement notice management plan. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video