Page 944 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: With respect, let us go back to what you said about that. You said, Mr Minister, that you do not wish to give people unlimited discretions. You want to make sure that public servants do not have large discretions and, therefore, we should specify a period for the further extension.
Madam Speaker, let me make it quite clear. I am against public servants having unlimited discretions where those discretions do or could adversely affect the rights of citizens. I am not opposed to public servants having discretions where those discretions can only work to the benefit of citizens of the Territory. What is wrong with a public servant, in this case a policeman, being able to grant a person, particularly a person in some need, in some financial hardship - there are plenty of such people in our community now - having an extension of time to pay their parking fine or their traffic fine? Why should he not have that extension? I am happy to give a policeman as much time as he wishes because those sorts of discretions work to the advantage of citizens of the Territory.
Mr Connolly: You do not want to have magistrates having discretion in bail. You want to lock them away.
MR HUMPHRIES: No; if a person goes to court, Mr Connolly, the court has the power to grant a discretionary amount of time, up to 10 years if he wishes to. If this poor soul has to go before the court and says that he needs, within reason, a particular period, he will get that time to pay. So why should that person not avoid having to go to court by being able to go to the police, who originally issue the fine, and say, "Look, I am unemployed", or, "I am a deserted mother"? It may be some other reason. Why should that person not be able to say, "I need time to pay; please give me time that will suit my means" and be able to get that time? That is what we are talking about in this amendment.
If the Minister wants to move an amendment to limit that discretion, I would rather see that happen than the amendment go down altogether. It really seems to me not to be the act of a socially just government to refuse the capacity of citizens to get extensions of time without having to go to court. That is what we are talking about with this amendment.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.28), by leave: In respect, firstly, of the "keep left" aspect of the legislation and some of the streets that I mentioned where there are the right-hand lanes, with the changed arrangements on the Eastern Parkway they now are in 80 kilometres an hour zones. But the place within a 100 kilometres an hour zone where there would be the potential to move right is as you go into Johnson Drive, coming down the eastern distributor. That is within a 100 kilometres an hour zone, I am advised. The best view of my traffic engineers is that that remains a 100 kilometres an hour zone. You then come through a fairly major roundabout type of interchange. Again the point is that you are moving into the right-hand lane. You drop down, of course, as you go into Johnson Drive. That is an 80 kilometres an hour area. Again traffic will be coming across to the right.
It is hard to imagine that any car would be doing 100 kilometres an hour as it goes into that roundabout, unless it is a Ferrari driven by Fangio. It is a fairly tight corner to take at 100 kilometres an hour.
Mrs Grassby: How about Hewson?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .