Page 3953 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 23 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
amendments are coming in, in special arrangements, like they are - No. 5 referring to taxi fares, No. 6 referring to traffic infringement notices, et cetera.
But the crux of the argument that Mr Connolly used, unfortunately, relates to the issue that Mrs Grassby raised a month or so ago when this was first mooted in relation to traffic offences. For Mr Connolly's benefit I would just like to point out exactly what this legislation that we are passing tonight is doing.
This Bill increases the penalties for on-the-spot fines for traffic infringement notices or TINs, as they are commonly known. It is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to improve road safety and reduce the road toll in the ACT. The increased penalties complement such measures as increased enforcement of seat belt and restraint wearing, graduated licences for novice drivers and continued road safety education programs in schools.
Traffic infringement notices, Mr Connolly, are issued by the police for less serious traffic offences such as speeding, graduated into three levels, 0 to 15, 15 to 30 and over 30, not wearing a seat belt, not stopping at a "Stop" sign or not giving way at a "give way" sign or not wearing a motorcycle helmet and so on. Now, this is the crux of the issue: Offences of a more serious nature such as dangerous or negligent driving are not traffic infringements. Offenders charged with those types of acts do not receive on-the-spot fines; they are required to go before the court. Driving at a dangerous speed, for example, is one such offence with a maximum fine of $2,000.
When Mrs Grassby first raised this issue my colleague the Attorney-General, Mr Collaery, responded to her extraordinary claims that increased monetary penalties for traffic offenders would double the time spent in gaol by fine defaulters. As I recall then, he said that she did not know what she was talking about. I am actually quite embarrassed for Mr Connolly to say that he does not know what he is talking about this evening, particularly given his particular area of expertise.
I want to respond to what Mrs Grassby has claimed and what Mr Connolly has reiterated tonight. I am sure it is going to be a very embarrassing reread of Hansard when Mr Connolly does reread it because he is going to find that he has got the law wrong. Let me say that increasing on-the-spot traffic fines has no relevance to gaol sentences for non-payment of fines. I notice that I am saying this and I do not seem to be - - -
Mr Connolly: I hear what you are saying.
MR DUBY: I was going to say that I do not seem to be getting any impression from Mr Connolly. He is sitting over there reading his "Law Week", or whatever the book may be. I will say it again. Increasing the on-the-spot
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .