Page 3957 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 23 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 9, page 2, paragraph (e), line 32, omit "$130", substitute "$100".
Clause 11, page 3, paragraph (b), line 2, omit "50", substitute "40".
Clause 11, page 3, paragraph (c), line 4, omit "70", substitute "50".
Clause 11, page 3, paragraph (d), line 6, omit "80", substitute "60".
Clause 11, page 3, paragraph (e), line 8, omit "100", substitute "70".
Clause 11, page 3, paragraph (f), line 10, omit "130", substitute "100".
Having heard the evidence, the point, I guess, that carried most weight with me is that although the ACT fines are already lower than in New South Wales and other States Mr Duby admits that we still have a lower death and injury rate and a lower accident rate. That being the case, I think that there are obviously other factors that come into it apart from just the deterrent factor of fines. Those conservatives think that the only way to deter is to increase fines. Of course, that is very suitable for those who have money, but it makes it very difficult for those who have to find, as they would suggest, $130 or $70 for doing 10 kilometres or 15 kilometres an hour over the speed limit.
Whilst I accept that there is a need for some increase, the increase that we are looking at of nearly 100 per cent in some of these cases is really right over the top. Accepting that there is a need for some increases, I think that it is very important for us to realise three things: first of all, the sort of increase that I am suggesting will have no different deterrent effect from the increases that have been put in the Bill; secondly, whilst we are in this time of economic hardship it is most important to ensure that we do not cause any more pain than we have to; and, thirdly, there has been no evidence to show that there is good reason, from a traffic and safety point of view, to raise the fines to this level. That being the case, I think the amendments, as circulated, that I have moved are appropriate.
MR SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I would just like to point out to members that we are looking at clauses 9 to 11 when considering these amendments.
MR STEVENSON (9.56): I support the words of Mr Moore.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (9.56): I will be brief. Mr Speaker, I am astounded to hear from Mr Moore on this point. He has pressed me, in particular, very strongly in this Assembly and outside this Assembly on the cost of policing. The community expects a very high standard of safety, a high standard of policing and so on and so forth. It all adds up to a vast amount of money for the Government and I find it somewhat incongruous that Mr Moore would now stand and seek to reduce the general funds available to the Government out of a policing function. That to me
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .