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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 912 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I will deal with some of the arguments that come from this anonymous document that Ms Horodny read from. What this person is saying is that under the new system, using the words put forward by Ms Horodny, "The driving instructors will have an unfettered power over young, vulnerable people". No, they will not, because, first of all, they have to go through an accreditation program to be a qualified and accredited driver-trainer. It is not, as Ms Horodny suggests, a simple 10-day course to qualify. It is far more than not. The accreditation process for these accredited driver-trainers implies a 10-day course; but it also implies a traffic and criminal records check, a medical assessment, a vehicle compliance check, and that they have indemnity insurance and a whole range of other things. If they do not have those things they do not get to be an accredited instructor.

Once they get out there they are not unfettered. They are subjected to continuous audit as to their performance. At least one in 10 of their students will be audited by government auditors. The numbers will be generated randomly by a computer. In addition to those, the auditors may identify additional students whose performance can be assessed. When they go out and do that audit they are not only assessing whether or not the student is properly progressing through the course of instruction which is set down; they also are assessing the performance of the instructor. The allegation made by this person that there is going to be unfettered access, unfettered control and unfettered influence over young and non-English-speaking people is simply a furphy. It is not true.

Mr Speaker, the Greens are putting forward these amendments on totally spurious grounds, and I do not think they understand the outcome of what they are proposing anyway. For example, if at the end of the day, no matter what, the student is then required to front up and take an examination, just as they are required to now, there is an unintended consequence that the Greens obviously have not thought of. At the moment, when a provisionally licensed driver moves into Canberra from interstate, or if they move from Canberra interstate, they automatically get a provisional licence in their new State of residence. Under this provision, anybody coming into Canberra in future with a provisional licence will have to go and take a drivers test before they can get a current provisional licence in the ACT. I am sure the Greens had not thought about that, because they have not thought their proposal through.

Mr Speaker, first of all, the proposal put forward by the Greens would totally negate the concept of competency-based driver training. Very few people would opt to take it, knowing that at the end of the day they are going to have to take a test, and that test alone will determine whether they get their licence anyway. If they fail it they are not going to get a licence. Irrespective of the fact that they have gone through and qualified in every area of competence at a predetermined skill level, they could still, on the day, fail the drivers test and not get their licence. What is fair about that? Nothing.

On the question of acceptance, there was an allegation in this strange document that came to me that a straw poll - whatever that is - of adults and teenagers, drivers and non-drivers alike, has shown a distinct lack of support for the system. I do not know what a straw poll is. I suppose I can go around and ask a dozen people, too, and I would not know what sort of answer I would get. The fact is that in South Australia - the only place in

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