Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 22 August 2018) . . Page.. 3415 ..


Mr Steel. It really is about taking community feedback into account and making sure that we are listening, particularly to the people whom this affects the most. I was very pleased to hear Minister Rattenbury’s comments today that he is listening and that there will be changes. However, given the attention that this has had, I thought it would be helpful in this debate to put on the record some of the comments that I have personally received about this.

Members in this place know full well that participation in things that the government puts out for comment is not necessarily high on a lot of people’s agendas. But the number of people who have commented on this, both directly to my colleagues and also through the surveys, really points out that this is such an important issue, particularly around the curfew.

I want to read to the Assembly a few of the comments made to me. One is that it severely limits options around work outside of uni hours when public transport is not an option. It also seems to imply that P-platers cannot be responsible instead of taking the course of punishing those who do break the law. Another said that there need to be exceptions in place for some of these. What about young people who work or have carer roles? This person had some further concerns about supervised hours. Someone then responded to that and said that the danger of a compromise and allowing people to drive to or from work but banning other trips is: how on earth do you police that? That is an incredibly good point.

I had a comment from someone on Twitter who said, “This is not a good idea. P-platers may be the designated driver-carer or helping out a friend or family. Aren’t the issues speeding and drinking?” Someone else chimed in and said, “Or they could be finishing or starting work during these hours. I agree with limiting the vehicles but not sure that the hours are such a great idea.”

Let me go to some other comments I received. One agreed that many young P-platers work in clubs and pubs and finish late. One said that education is the key, not more restrictions. Another person said to me, “That’s just dumb. Like any drivers, there are good ones and bad ones. I’ve seen people with full licences without curfews doing really dumb things. All it will result in is people not using P-plates after the curfew and then taking the risk of getting a fine for not displaying them.”

That is just a handful of comments that I have received, and I know that many of my colleagues in this place have received them. They really do point to most of the key issues with the policy put forward. I am very pleased that Minister Rattenbury said that there will be changes. I sincerely hope there will be changes to this particular aspect.

MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee) (12.15): I would like to thank Miss C Burch for bringing this motion forward today. I want to start by saying that our government is committed to ensuring that our roads are safe. We need to continually look at ways to improve safety on our roads, including reviewing our licensing arrangements.

The challenge of regulating for safety on our roads must reflect a practical and evidence-based approach to road safety. But as a proudly progressive and inclusive


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video