Page 1157 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a principle which applies on roads throughout this country. It is not as if we are taking a startling new invention and proposing some device which has not been tried before. We are just picking up what other States are doing, and that was the line, as I recall, that was used very extensively by the Attorney-General last night with respect to abortion. As far as I can tell, we are doing exactly what occurs in New South Wales and other places. It works perfectly well there, as far as I can see, and it does engender a certain degree of responsibility on the part of drivers to be aware of the need to keep that right-hand lane free for people who are travelling at or near the speed limit. Yet the Attorney says that it does not work. It seems to me that it works perfectly well elsewhere, and I do not see why we should not be doing it here.
The Attorney made an interesting comment about waiting. He said, "With respect to that extension of time for traffic fines, let us wait until the next sitting period, when we will have a comprehensive package to look at". I point out that that phraseology is almost exactly the same as the words the Attorney rejected about 15 months ago when we were looking at the Food Bill.
Mr Connolly: Yes, but the difference is that we were able to introduce the Food Bill and you were still tinkering around with it.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, the difference is that you did it many months after you said you were going to do it. Madam Speaker, the Attorney said then, "There is no reason to wait. This is something which needs to happen now to alleviate the problem. We should get onto it right now. I do not accept that we should wait for the Government's package to come down". I would like to hear one single good reason why we should not do exactly the same today and reject the Attorney's plea for time to be given to the Government to bring down its comprehensive package.
We have, with respect, heard that phrase before. You say, "Hopefully, in August we will see this package". I think it was hopefully in August that we were going to see the Food Bill. We did not see it in August of last year at all. It came in in May or June of this year.
Mr Connolly: We did not see it at all in the 18 months in which you were going to deliver it.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a nice, cute point; but it does not avoid the fact that you argued against leaving this matter on the table because it could be dealt with straightaway, and I would say exactly the same thing to you now. Putting aside the rhetoric, what is the reason we should wait for your package when you did not believe that you should wait for a package from the former Government?
Madam Speaker, this second part of the Bill is a sensible amendment. It is not a matter which sits oddly on the lips of the Opposition at all. The suggestion that a party which is tough on law-breakers should not in the same breath argue that law-breakers should have extensions of time to pay parking and traffic fines is a rather incongruous point, when you consider it. There is no question of letting law-breakers off or not dealing harshly with law-breakers where that is appropriate. Of course we should. The question of time to pay parking fines is a very real question of, in some cases, social justice. You could be looking at a situation where, for example, a person is unemployed, as was the person I referred to on the previous occasion on which we debated this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .