Page 500 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 23 March 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I was inspired by the climate crisis in my consideration of this bill because I was not. But the two of us, and many others, including Mr Steel, have a pretty high focus on the active travel component of this bill. The new laws, in theory, make it safer for people to walk, to ride their bikes on the roads, to get about their business and to do so in a safe manner.
I speak as an MLA who, like Ms Clay, rode my bike to work this morning. We are both pretty serious about promoting positive change in this space, as is Mr Steel. I note Mr Steel’s ministerial statement in the chamber this morning pertaining to active travel investment priorities. Both Ms Clay and I, and the Canberra Liberals broadly, will be holding Mr Steel to account on this.
We must also recognise, and genuinely recognise, the work that has been done thus far in this space. This amendment has occupied much of my time and attention in the last week, and we have found it very difficult to arrive at a final position. Indeed, I wavered on a number of occasions last week. I was yes, then no, then yes again, before finally arriving at a position late on Friday afternoon. Ultimately, if the bill were passed in its original form, it would still be a good bill. So if we had made the decision to support Minister Steel, that would not have been a diabolical outcome at all—it would have been a good outcome—but I think that the outcome with the Clay amendments in force is marginally better.
Over a series of conversations about the amendment, I arrived at the position that we would likely get better outcomes if the Clay amendment became law. It is my belief that when an offence of this nature takes place, the more quickly justice can be served, the better. I trust our police. I am not suggesting that Mr Steel does not trust our police, because I know that he does. But one of the things that has come through in our decision-making on this is that we trust the police to make the discretionary decisions that are required to enforce a law of this nature.
I take on board the comments made by the Steel office regarding the possible interruption to the hierarchy of penalties that is caused by the addition of the Clay amendment. But I think that the level of interruption is debatable and, by and large, I do not think it will have a detrimental effect on the outcomes.
I know that some drafting guidelines were not necessarily followed and that some of the i’s were not dotted and the t’s were not crossed. But ultimately it was the conversations I had with the Australian Federal Police Association and Pedal Power that pushed me over the line to give support to Ms Clay’s amendment. Both of those conversations were focused on outcomes.
I have listened to Mr Steel today, who still presents a very solid argument as to why the bill should not be amended. But, based on conversations that I have had with people who are in the field and on the ground, and based on their lived experience of how these things play out either in court or otherwise, we have leant towards supporting the amendments.
I agree with Ms Clay that, under the original provisions in the bill, it is less likely that police would proceed with this offence because of the time-consuming nature of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video