Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 2901 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

A three-tier offence structure with increased penalties at each level of prescribed concentration of alcohol will be considered. This is based on the New South Wales drink-driving experience. We will also be removing the opportunity for a low-range offender to be dealt with by a traffic infringement notice. We should not and will not treat getting caught for drink-driving as a simple matter of filling out paperwork and paying a bill. Like anyone else accused of a criminal offence, those caught will have to go to court and be dealt with and punished in the public eye.

We also propose tightening up eligibility for special licences. Consistent with this approach, we will give police, in addition to their ordinary powers of arrest, power to temporarily confiscate the car keys of people who are charged with a drink-driving offence and are unaccompanied by a driver under the limit to take them home. We will also be coming down - and hard - on those extremely irresponsible people who, even though they have lost their licence, still think they can drink and drive.

There is no doubt that the process of diversionary conferencing is well worth while examining, as the reintegrative shaming experiment is currently doing. I think this has particular potential for punishing young people for, and deterring them from, crime. However, I am going to more closely examine the suitability of this process for drink-drivers, particularly in relation to its effectiveness as a general deterrence, compared to the usual court-based approach of dealing with offenders. People should not assume that diversionary conferencing is an easy option compared to being dealt with by a court. However, I do want to be certain that all drink-drivers get the message that their behaviour is criminal and unacceptable and that anyone caught will face harsh consequences.

The message is clear. This Government is getting tough with people who drive when over .05. The challenge is how to get this message through to those people who persist in driving when over the limit. Exposure to the agony of accident victims and bereft relatives is a tempting solution and one used to at least temporary good effect in Victoria with its graphic television campaigns. However, we need longer-term solutions. We need to teach people how to count their drinks so they do not go over the limit and drive. We need the liquor industry to reinforce responsible consumption of alcohol. I have already been discussing with the liquor industry its greater role in getting those messages through to its customers.

The Government also acknowledges that it has a role to play in facilitating transport arrangements for people who do wish to consume alcohol but who are sensible enough to avoid driving home. Last year efforts were undertaken to trial the Nightrider bus service - a late-night service provided by ACTION to enable people to have the option of using buses to get to the area of their homes. Whilst over certain periods the service was popular, it was also very expensive and certainly could not be sustained as a budget concern by the ACT Government. Each weekend it cost $4,800 to provide the service, while the amount recouped was only $900. After the introductory period, levels of patronage were such that they could be handled by several taxis per hour.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .