Page 586 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The point is that we have a general offence provision that covers a range of offences, from the potentially trivial and laughable - the three horses abreast offence - to really quite serious offences. The section 32 offence - driver to stop in the case of an accident - is a matter which I think most people would regard as fairly serious. The section 33 offence - driver to stop a vehicle when directed by a police officer - is a reasonably serious matter. I would ask the Liberals whether they think that $100 should be left or whether it is reasonable, in a context in which penalties generally have risen over the years, to increase these penalties.
I would restate that it is the Government's intention to pursue a matter that I addressed, I think, in my introductory speech when I first came into this Assembly; that is, to move to the regime of penalty units whereby we can do a sort of once and for all review of penalties in ACT legislation, quantify them and decide whether we think that failing to stop when a police officer tells you to is a matter that is three times more serious than riding horses three abreast on the footpath, set the penalty by way of penalty units, and then have a single Act that allows us to increase the monetary quantum of those penalty units with inflation.
The Government does intend to pursue that course; but, for the instant, we have this Bill before the Assembly to debate the issue of cycle helmets. The opportunity was taken to review a penalty provision that has been there for some years. While it is possible to trivialise this and say that we are being excessive in talking about $500 for not having a bell on your pushbike, which is at the most trivial extreme, on the other hand there are some quite substantial matters here, such as not stopping in the case of an accident and not stopping when required to do so by a police officer. For these matters, really, a $500 maximum penalty - and in every case it goes before a magistrate - is not unreasonable. I will leave that matter with the Liberal Party. They are always lecturing us about increasing penalties and getting tougher. We will see what they do.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 6
MR MOORE (9.26): Clause 6 relates to the issue that Mr Connolly has just been speaking on - the penalties for offences. They are increasing the penalty by amending the Act to omit $100 and substitute $500 - a 500 per cent increase. Mr Connolly drew attention to substantial matters and referred to sections 32 and 33 of the Act and other substantial areas. What this actually indicates is his own inadequacy. If there were a particular reason to distinguish between substantial matters and far less substantial matters, it would be appropriate for the amendment to this legislation to be drawn accordingly. That was not done. It was simply done in this manner, and that is why it is appropriate for us to vote against it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .