<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2012-03-27" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="805" />
  <endPage num="874" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Answers to Questions</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Government Spending</name>
      <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000321">
        <heading>GOVERNMENT SPENDING</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>In reply to Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-03-27">
            <name>GOVERNMENT SPENDING</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000322">In reply to <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg)</by> (8 November 2011) (First Session).</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Enfield</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Planning</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Business Services and Consumers</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-03-27">
            <name>GOVERNMENT SPENDING</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000323">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers):</by>  The Attorney-General has received this advice:</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000324">In answer to the first part of the question, the amount of the net decrease in the un-locatable receivables in the period 2009 to 2011 attributable to receivables written off is $34.8 million. Of this amount written off, $977,255 has been reinstated.</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000325">In relation to the second part of the question, amounts written off 2009-11 by the categories requested are:</text>
        <page num="832" />
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000326">(a)&amp;#x9;People Un-located. On the 30 June 2009 $34.8 million of Un-locatable debt was 'written off' under the CAA Fines Payment Unit Debt Write Off Policy. Any amount written off under the policy can be reinstated should be debtor be located in the future. Since that time $977,255 has been reinstated.</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000327">(b)&amp;#x9;Court varied enforcement orders—$43.7 million has been quashed by Court Order. The majority of this relates to Applications to Review Enforcement Orders on Expiation Notices. Where the application is granted all enforcement fees are written off and the expiation is returned to the Issuing Authority to collect the original fine imposed on the notice.</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000328">(c)&amp;#x9;Died—$1.2 million</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000329">(d)&amp;#x9;Goaled Interstate—$0. Since the introduction of the Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Act 2010 on the 15 December 2010, the CAA Fines Payment Unit can now undertake enforcement action against interstate debtors.</text>
        <text id="20120327655bd17cb12c430da0000330">(e)&amp;#x9;Imprisoned in South Australia—$1.7 million has been written off to be recovered by the Institution. This relates to Victims of Crime Levies. The amount is forwarded to the Institution to be deducted and paid directly into the VOC Fund. When a prisoner is released the Institution notifies the FPU of the outstanding amount which is then pursued by the Unit. During 2009-11 $234,474 was reversed to be recovered by the FPU.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>