Page 937 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would fit neatly with an overall Liberal Party philosophy. Mr Humphries put out quite a treatise on when one should legislate and when one should not, and a legislative policy. You really ought to try an educative approach before you use a legislative approach, and you really ought to be cautious about using the sledge-hammer to crack the walnut.
There are potential problems with a law requiring, in all cases, traffic to be in the left-hand lane unless overtaking in over 80 kilometres an hour areas. That could well have the effect of reducing the smooth traffic flow on both the parkway and the distributor, and that would disadvantage Canberra residents who regularly commute to and from the valley. There are particular problems where you turn to Queanbeyan, to Tharwa Road or where you turn up to Long Gully Road. You are on that highway system where you have an above 80 kilometres an hour zone and you are turning right, which would make enforcement difficult. We do not see a safety-based justification for this; we see a potential confusion to traffic flow.
We acknowledge, as Mr Westende raised the problem, that there are some areas in Canberra, some specific choke points on the roads, where slow travelling vehicles in the right-hand lane can be a problem. I will give an undertaking that we will address that with some signage. Let us keep an eye on how traffic flows. If it turns out that people do not sensibly follow directions, we may need to look at a legislative solution later. But I would suggest that at the moment this legislative solution would give rise to more problems than solutions. For the benefit of some specific choke points where it may be helpful, it would tend to reduce traffic to one lane for the major part of the parkway and the distributor where traffic flows freely. So I would urge members not to support that amendment and I give an undertaking that we will be addressing it from an educative perspective.
In relation to the time for payment of traffic infringement notices, the thrust of Mr Westende's amendment is to extend the period in which you can pay such notices. At the moment you have 28 days, with the possibility of applying for an extension for a further 28 days. The proposed amendment is to give an unlimited further period of extension. Members may have noted a media report some weeks ago during a non-sitting period where we said that we would be reviewing the operation of both the traffic infringement system and the parking infringement system, and the whole concept of fine default. As members would be aware, there was a substantial change in the ACT in recent years, originated by Mrs Grassby and carried through under both Mr Duby's stewardship and my own, to move away from criminal penalties imposed in the courts for traffic default and fine default, and to adopt the infringement notice system. We put through late last year legislation taking away the ultimate penalty of gaol for non-payment of a fine and replacing it with the cancellation of the licence for traffic infringement notices. That potential loss of a licence for parking infringement notices was introduced by Mrs Grassby in the period of the first Labor Government.
We have felt that it is appropriate, as the system has been in place for a few years now, to have a look at this whole system. There are a couple of potential problems. There is a potential problem in that you do not have an absolute right to challenge a parking notice. You can write to the registrar and say, "I wish to challenge this in court rather than have it dealt with as an on-the-spot fine", and the registrar can refer it to the court. Indeed, a number of matters have been successfully challenged that way. But there may well be a good argument that it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .