Fines Amendment Bill 2008 
|
| Wednesday, 09 April 2008 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.21 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Fines Amendment Bill 2008. The Opposition supports the tenets of the bill, which, on the whole, seek to tighten the laws to prevent motorists avoiding fines by improving the processes relating to the administration of penalty notices and fines enforcement by addressing fine avoidance practices, improving the options for resolving outstanding fines, and facilitating improved administration by the State Debt Recovery Office. Of course, we do not object to ensuring motorists pay fines if they break the law. However, the Government must ensure this revenue is reinvested back into road safety. We will address that issue in our response. The Office of State Revenue estimates that in 2006-07 approximately 20,000 matters could not be resolved, which equates to around $3.5 million in lost revenue. Motorists have avoided fines by supplying incorrect addresses, stamping mail "Return to Sender", failing to notify authorities of a change of address or saying someone else was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence—the famous incident of Mr Einfeld comes to mind. Although the State Debt Recovery Office goes to every effort to data match the fine recipient, thousands of people are getting out of paying their fines. On this evidence it is clear that the law needs tightening. Loopholes must be closed so that road rules can be enforced. The bill proposes several amendments to the Fines Act 1996, which will assist motorists in paying fines. These include schedule 1 [2] and [8], which will enable motorists to pay penalty notices in instalments—and we encourage that because some fines have increased to very significant amounts and not every family is in a position to meet the cost of some of those penalties when they are applied; and schedule 1 [4], [10] and [11], which will allow recipients of fines to elect to go to court to dispute the fine, even after it has been paid. Sometimes people will pay a fine, not realise they have paid it and then want to dispute it later. The bill proposes added responsibility for motorists, who will now be responsible for notifying the Roads and Traffic Authority if their address changes. If a fine is sent to the address held by the Roads and Traffic Authority it will have to be paid. If the owner of a vehicle was not driving when the offence occurred he or she will have to provide the correct name and address of the person driving his or her vehicle. If a motorist provides the incorrect details he or she can then be prosecuted under the Fines Act. The bill proposes expanding the powers of the State Debt Recovery Office in this process. Currently, the State Debt Recovery Office has difficulty prosecuting if motorists nominate another driver as the driver who committed the offence. The bill proposes giving the State Debt Recovery Office the authority to investigate statutory declarations if there is cause for concern. As I understand it, that process could take 12 months, and sometimes even after 12 months the matter may not have reached a conclusion. If there is cause for concern, giving the State Debt Recovery Office the power to investigate a matter is a good thing. Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to confirm that a police prosecutor can act on behalf of the State Debt Recovery Office. The campaign within the broader community must ensure that motorists are aware of the changes contained in the bill. We do not object to motorists being made more accountable. However, it is important that all motorists are aware of, and understand, their new responsibilities. Therefore, there is an onus on the Government to undertake an education campaign in some way, shape or form, and we believe there should be advertising to cover a range of needs. For example, motorists who do not speak English as their first language or motorists who are young or elderly may not know the onus is now on them to notify the Roads and Traffic Authority of a change of address. The law should be framed to catch out those who are deliberately trying to avoid paying a fine and not those who are simply not aware of some of the changes. We encourage the Roads and Traffic Authority to make every effort to ensure motorists are very clear on what the new law requires them to do. In regard to the revenue these fines will raise, every year the Iemma Government receives a windfall in revenue from traffic infringements. In February the Daily Telegraph reported that fines to drivers had tripled to $312 million in just six years. That is $35,580 every hour that is collected from motorists in New South Wales. Speeding infringements, from both police-issued fines and fixed-speed cameras, increased from 460,067 offences to 642,461 in six years. Parking fines—the bane of my existence—increased from 466,105 to 1,206,322 over the same period. A significant revenue benefit flows to the Iemma Government from fines and we believe the onus must be on the Government to reinvest that back into road safety. The Government claims to do just that. On 17 March a spokesman for the Roads and Traffic Authority said:
We support the bill. As an overall principle we believe the tenets make sense and the move to tighten the law for motorists who break the law is obviously supported. We recommend the Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that motorists are clear about their new responsibilities and undertake an education campaign as part of that process. We reiterate our call for the Government to reinvest some of the windfall in the revenue from fines that it receives back into roads and, importantly, improve pedestrian and driver safety.
Add to:          Write Comment
|
||||||
