Page 387 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second aspect to this matter is that the practice of not driving in the left lane unless overtaking affects the flow of traffic. It means that a driver can sit in the middle or right-hand lane at speeds well under the minimum speed and, if he or she is driving beside a vehicle in the left lane that is travelling at the same speed, this can cause a traffic build-up which invariably causes frustrations and unsafe driving behaviour in others. A build-up of traffic caused by this kind of driving behaviour is also potentially dangerous for the free passage of emergency vehicles. Madam Speaker, this is not an earth shattering piece of legislation in itself, but it is an important one and it will bring the Act into line with New South Wales law on this matter. Of course it will apply only to roadways where the speed limit is 80 kilometres or more per hour.
The second part of the Bill deals with the ability of the Commissioner of Police to grant extensions of time to people who have incurred traffic fines. These extensions cannot at present exceed 28 days. The effect of the amendment will be to allow the Commissioner of Police to grant more than one extension or extensions which exceed 28 days. We feel that this is necessary because of a number of genuine cases which have been brought to the attention of Opposition members. These involve cases of hardship, where unemployed people have found it necessary to ask for an extension but then have found, either for financial or other reasons, that the 28-day extension has been insufficient to allow them to find the funds to cover the fine.
We must remember that penalties for traffic infringements can be extremely high. At present, in cases where the 28-day extension cannot be met, the matter goes back to the Magistrates Court, thus adding to court delays and court costs. It would seem sensible to prevent genuine cases of hardship clogging up the court system. I believe that we should allow the appropriate authorities more flexibility in assessing the ability of people to meet fine requirements.
It should be noted that the commissioner already has some flexibility in that section 180A(5) allows the commissioner to grant an extension of time not exceeding 28 days. In other words, should he or she wish, the extension would be for 10 days or two weeks. Providing the authorities with greater flexibility on this matter should not be a contentious issue and the reform, though minor in nature, could help relieve congestion in our court system. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
ELECTRICITY AND WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 8 April 1992, on motion by Mrs Carnell:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .