Hon Ken Travers asked about different versions of parking infringement tickets used by the Public Transport Authority (PTA). Hon Simon O’Brien confirmed two versions exist due to different printer batches, but both comply with regulations.

AnsweredQoN 749Legislative Council
Asked
8 September 2011
Portfolio
Transport

QuestionView source ↗

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — PARKING INFRINGEMENT TICKETS
(1) Has the Public Transport Authority used different parking infringement tickets over the last 12 months? (2) If yes, how many different versions have been used? (3) Why are there different versions and what is the difference? (4) When were the different versions printed? (5) Did the different versions fully comply with the wording in schedule 2 of the regulations? (6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(2) If yes, how many different versions have been used? (3) Why are there different versions and what is the difference? (4) When were the different versions printed? (5) Did the different versions fully comply with the wording in schedule 2 of the regulations? (6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(3) Why are there different versions and what is the difference? (4) When were the different versions printed? (5) Did the different versions fully comply with the wording in schedule 2 of the regulations? (6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(4) When were the different versions printed? (5) Did the different versions fully comply with the wording in schedule 2 of the regulations? (6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(5) Did the different versions fully comply with the wording in schedule 2 of the regulations? (6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(6) If no to (5), why not, and has the PTA had legal advice that confirms that all the different versions are valid? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(2) Two. (3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(3) The two versions were the result of a different printer’s batch. Some wording is different. (4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(4) One version was printed in February 2009 and another version was last printed in February 2006 and is in use on the network. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(5) Yes. (6) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more