Page 1159 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Although I support the concept of the Bill, I actually oppose the second section on keeping to the left-hand lane. At the same time, I urge Mr Connolly to ensure that there is a greater process of education applied to drivers and that more signs are put up on the roads to indicate that vehicles that are travelling more slowly should use the left-hand lane, particularly going up hills, and that applies particularly on the Tuggeranong Parkway where it crosses Hindmarsh Drive.
I now move to the traffic infringement notices. Mr Connolly drew attention to the notion that the "not exceeding 28 days" section could be expanded, as Mr Westende suggested, to allow any further time to apply. When you read the principal Act you realise that it is not 28 days that people have to pay; it is actually 56 days. There is an initial 28 days and then a further 28-day period. I think it would be very generous of us to say, "You have any further time to pay that the Commissioner of Police allows after the expiration of the first-mentioned period", according to the principal Act. If we change that from 28 days to any period, that puts an unnecessary responsibility on the Commissioner of Police, and I do not think there is any need to do that. I understand that Ms Szuty has indicated to members that she is prepared to put up an amendment for a period not exceeding 56 days. If that is acceptable to Mr Westende, I would be prepared to support that amendment. It does recognise that times are difficult financially and it gives an extended time, which is the point Mr Westende is raising in his amendment.
When Mr Connolly comes back with his totally refurbished look at all these areas and has some further suggestions, I will be quite happy to consider that. It may well be that over the next few months we learn that there is some terrible problem and that what we have done is causing difficulties. I think it is more likely that we will find that it has actually improved the situation for people who need that extra bit of time to save the money when they have done the wrong thing and have to pay a fine. It may well be that this is a model Mr Connolly can look at and assess whether or not it is an appropriate way to deal with fines. If that is the case, we will be able to work with that extra bit of knowledge in mind.
In summary, Madam Speaker, I support the concept of the Bill in principle. I will be supporting the amendment in clause 4, although I will be opposing the amendment in clause 3 on keeping to the left-hand lane. Having these double-barrelled Bills does make things difficult in many ways, but I can understand why it is done in that way.
MR WESTENDE (11.10), in reply: Madam Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that I would have thought had enough commonsense in it to appeal to just about everyone, and it surprises me that the Government is opposed to it. When we checked with the Minister's office in the early stages - and I mean the Minister's office, not the Minister - we had an indication that they would not oppose it. In fact, they seemed to be fairly enthusiastic about it. So it did come as a surprise when the Minister announced the Government's opposition.
Mr Connolly: Who said that?
MR WESTENDE: Your office indicated that you would not oppose it, Mr Minister. Mr Connolly in his address on this Bill made the comment that the ACT expressways encourage people to drive as fast as the law provides. I would argue that this is not the case, and that the truth of the matter is that people drive faster than the permitted speed at times. It is not uncommon to be caught up in a flow of traffic that is exceeding the limit. I suggest that one of the reasons for this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .