Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3008 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

I am aware of Mr Moore's argument that there may be exceptional cases where someone really needs a car for either work or family reasons and that these people should be able to put their case before a magistrate to avoid suffering the double penalty of losing their licence and losing their ability to get to work.

I think it is a quite regrettable situation in our society that we have become so dependent on using cars for getting around the city that being able to drive a car has virtually become another civil right; but I acknowledge that this is the current reality that we have to deal with. It is, hopefully, something that we can change over time. So we will support this amendment as well. I thank Mr Moore for taking on board my initial concerns about earlier drafts of his amendment so that it is clear now that, while anyone can apply for a special probationary licence, it will be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances.

We will not be supporting the Government's proposal to make it an offence for a driver to not produce a licence on demand. This proposal has been put up as a means of reducing the workload of the police, but we have doubts as to whether this would occur in practice. If a person does not have a licence on them when approached by police, it will still be difficult for the police to effectively fine the person. The police may issue a ticket, under the Government's proposals; but if the person has no identification on them it will still be possible for the person to evade the payment of the fine, and police resources will still be taken up in tracing people who do not pay the fine.

Mr Osborne: Oh yes, you are an expert. World leading expert on police, Lucy Horodny, says.

MS HORODNY: Thank you, Mr Osborne. That is very respectful of you.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (9.17): Mr Speaker, Mr Moore's proposed amendments to the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment) Bill really deal with the major question of the degree to which this legislature should establish mandatory and minimum sentence requirements. There are a couple of other issues which I will come to, but they have to do basically with the question of removing from courts certain discretion in terms of the sentences that they can impose. Mr Whitecross describes this as a perilous path for the legislators. It is very interesting that it is the same path that the State of New South Wales, the only Labor government State, has already gone down.

Mr Moore: Come on, Mr Kaine! You do not agree with everything that every Liberal State does.

MR KAINE: No, I do not, but in this case one of the reasons why we took this path was to achieve harmonisation with New South Wales so that if a driver from the ACT is driving in New South Wales he knows exactly what the situation is, and vice versa. People driving in here from New South Wales know that the same law applies here as applies in their home State. Surely there is some merit to that. To say, as Mr Whitecross said, that this is a perilous path for legislators to follow is a rather curious - - -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .