Page 1158 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: These are not parking fines; these are speeding fines. Parking fines are dealt with very differently.
MR HUMPHRIES: I beg your pardon; traffic fines. Whatever the offence, the best of us can be in the position where we are obliged to pay such a fine, and some people who are not as well paid as I or the Attorney cannot meet that payment straightaway. I have no hesitation in entrusting to the police force of this Territory a discretion to grant longer extensions of time to pay traffic fines. I really wonder why the Attorney does not feel that he can grant that discretion to the police. As I have said previously, I am very much opposed to discretions invested in public servants of whatever kind that militate against the rights and liberties of citizens of this Territory. A discretion to extend the period of time in which to pay a parking fine does not do that. On the contrary, it gives those citizens additional capacity to exercise time to pay, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the Assembly to do that.
I accept that there is going to be an amendment coming forward that we should limit that discretion to 56 days. I cannot, for the life of me, work out why that should be. Is it not possible that some people could well deserve an extension beyond 56 days? If they do deserve an extension beyond 56 days, why should they not get it? For what conceivable reason should they not get it? We are prepared to accept that some version of this should go through today, Madam Speaker; and, if that is what the Assembly wants, that is what the Assembly will get. However, I do think the Attorney should consider that, as far as keeping to the left is concerned, he is trying to argue that something which works perfectly well in practice somehow should be rejected because it does not work in theory.
MR MOORE (11.04): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the in-principle stage of this Bill. There are really two sections to the Bill put up by Mr Westende. The first part, which is the notion of people keeping to the left-hand side unless overtaking, does get some sympathy. Many of us who have driven long distances in particular have been in the position where road police officers feel that it is their role to drive in the right-hand lane of a dual carriageway and, where the speed limit is 100, to sit on 96 or 97 - not quite reaching the speed limit - to ensure that nobody else goes to 100 or that somebody who is passing does not accelerate to 105. Of course, that is not their role.
I guess that the problem Mr Westende is trying to resolve is the frustration that other drivers feel. Once drivers start to feel frustrated, we bring in an element that will turn what might otherwise be a quite good driver into a driver who takes risks. It is the removing of those risks that is the aim of this Bill. If it applied to the road between here and Sydney, for example, or between here and Melbourne - - -
Mr Humphries: Which it does.
MR MOORE: I acknowledge that it does - then it would seem to be a very sensible amendment. Within the ACT, however, there are very few cases where that is the situation, although there are some associated problems, and I know that Mr Connolly has drawn attention to some of those. I think the problems would actually outweigh the benefits for the ACT if we go with this part of the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .