Page 5195 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
framing offences. We have concerns as to whether or not this bill actually contravenes the government’s own guide to writing legislation. The JACS Guide to framing offences states on page 35:
Despite popular perception, research suggests that increasing penalties does not act as a significant deterrent or prevent crime. Strategies that look at reducing the incidence of crime (such as targeted education and awareness raising) and improving detection, arrest and prosecution of offenders are generally more effective.
If one of the aims of the bill is to deter crime, as the attorney partially referred to in his presentation speech, evidence tells us that there are much more effective things we should be implementing. Members will note that on radio this morning I referred to this and the attorney has referred to the national road safety strategy 2011-20 as a basis from which to increase the penalties. However, I think the attorney has over-stated the level of importance that the strategy places on penalties.
The strategy contains 59 action points. Not one of these actions calls for increased penalties. What they actually call for is improved use of sanctions. Recommendation No 9 deals with this issue and calls on jurisdictions to “improve the use of sanctions to more effectively deter people from speeding”.
Other recommendations call for the greater use of vehicle sanctions like car crushing for repeat drink drivers and drug drivers. These are the sort of creative responses that are proving to have an effect. In that vein the national strategy reported a successful case study from a Victorian road safety initiative in 2000. A comprehensive statistical evaluation of the impact of the Victorian package found that by the latter half of 2004 it had resulted in a 10 per cent reduction in all casualty crashes involving death or injury and a 27 per cent reduction in fatal crashes.
The Victorian initiative involved progressive introduction of a pack of six measures to improve speed compliance. Those were increasing speed camera operating hours by about 50 per cent, making enforcement more covert and unpredictable, increasing the number of enforcement sites in use, lowering the speed camera enforcement tolerance, reducing the thresholds for penalties applying to different levels of speeding offence and increasing the amount of speed-related advertising.
Importantly, not one of the measures involved increasing maximum sentences. What this package did was increase the prospects of apprehension, which is what the JACS Guide to framing offences talks about. It is interesting to reflect on that in light of the recent discussion we had about point-to-point speed cameras. I think Mrs Dunne has made it clear that the Liberal Party are very keen to act on this as well. Yet their vehement opposition to speak for the point-to-point cameras flies in the face of the proven evidence from Victoria about the importance of increasing enforcement and detection.
That is an important part of this for me today. It is very easy to come in here, just click your fingers and say: “Let us increase the penalties. It will get us on the front page of the paper. It will appease a segment of the community who feel that that kind of response is the right kind of response.” I think it is an unsophisticated response and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video