Wednesday, 11 May 2022
Bills
Justice Legislation Amendment (Fines Reform and Other Matters) Bill 2022
Bills
Justice Legislation Amendment (Fines Reform and Other Matters) Bill 2022
Council’s amendments
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
NEW CLAUSE
1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 37—
‘37A Director may decide that enforcement of infringement offence under this Act is not appropriate
(1) In section 20(1A) of the Fines Reform Act 2014—
(a) in paragraph (b), for “available.” substitute “available;”;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) if a tollway operator has withdrawn a request made to an enforcement agency to serve an infringement notice because the tollway operator considers it appropriate to do so having considered the circumstances of the person.”.
(2) In section 20(2)(a) of the Fines Reform Act 2014, for “a seven-day” substitute “subject to subsection (2A), a seven-day”.
(3) After section 20(2) of the Fines Reform Act 2014 insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to a seven-day notice that has been served in respect of a registered infringement fine if the infringement offence in respect of which the infringement notice was issued is—
(a) an offence against section 204(1) of the EastLink Project Act 2004; or
(b) an offence against section 73(1) of the Melbourne City Link Act 1995; or
(c) an offence against section 69(1) of the North East Link Act 2020; or
(d) an offence against section 32(1) of the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019.”.
(4) After section 20(4) of the Fines Reform Act 2014 insert—
“(5) In this section—
tollway operator means any of the following—
(a) the Freeway Corporation within the meaning of the EastLink Project Act 2004;
(b) the relevant corporation within the meaning of the Melbourne City Link Act 1995;
(c) the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation within the meaning of the North East Link Act 2020;
(d) the relevant West Gate Tunnel Corporation within the meaning of the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019.”.’.
2. Clause 99, line 25, omit “may” and insert “must”.
3. Clause 102, line 26, omit “may” and insert “must”.
4. Clause 105, line 31, omit “may” and insert “must”.
5. Clause 109, page 64, line 6, omit “may” and insert “must”.
That the amendments be agreed to.
These amendments will require Victoria Police to withdraw tolling infringements where a toll road operator requests it in line with the hardship schemes that they run. This removes the discretion from Victoria Police. The amendments also amend the stage when the withdrawal request can be effected to include the time after an infringement has been registered with Fines Victoria for enforcement. Thirdly, the amendments amend section 20(2) of the Fines Reform Act 2014 to make it possible for the withdrawal or deregistration of toll fines to occur after the seven-day notice has expired and warrants have been executed. I commend these amendments.
Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern) (18:04): The opposition supports these amendments. They mainly relate to issues that were ventilated in this house during the initial passage of the bill through the Legislative Assembly. As the lead speaker for the opposition I raised some concerns that had been raised with me by community legal centres, including Westjustice and Inner Melbourne Community Legal. One of their main concerns with the way the bill had been drafted was the question of if a toll road operator has agreed to withdraw an infringement and does not wish to pursue it, why would Victoria Police retain the discretion to continue with it? We are not talking about vulnerable people in toll road companies. Transurban is big enough to look after itself. Nobody is going to bully Transurban into withdrawing a tolling infringement that it does not believe is warranted. I thought that was pretty persuasive. We asked the government through the debate to address that particular issue, and it really was not addressed.
It was only when the issue was ventilated in the other place by us and by the crossbenchers and the crossbenchers moved these amendments that the issue was further discussed. I understand the government’s position is they do not believe in restraining the prosecutorial discretion of Victoria Police. By and large, that is not an unreasonable position, but we are talking about a situation here where we have got toll road companies, which as I said are very large, very profitable for the most part and certainly able to look after their own interests. They are not likely to be bullied by toll road users into withdrawing infringements in an unwarranted way. In those circumstances we did not particularly see the merit in retaining the discretion of Victoria Police. So we are pleased to support these amendments. I acknowledge the government did not die in a ditch over them. The government did not support the amendments or was not particularly keen on them, but look, I think this is an issue where people of good conscience can disagree but the amendments do improve the bill.
As a consequence of those amendments there are a couple of other amendments made to the bill as well which facilitate those matters which the Minister for Corrections has outlined. So we think these amendments they have made in the other place do improve the bill, and in future—and I know we have got a justice omnibus bill this week and I appreciate we will probably have a number of justice bills coming through the department—there is capacity in this place to actually listen to debates and to take them seriously, and I would love to see the Legislative Assembly do that a bit more. It should not just be because the government does not have complete control in the other place that sensible questions are put and considered and changes made. That should be able to be done here as well. So I would ask the government to take this as a teachable moment so that we can work together to improve legislation and get better outcomes for the community. I think that is what we are sent here for.
Motion agreed to.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Settle): A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.