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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 913 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Australia where a system like this has been in place - since 1993, 70 per cent of learner car drivers are choosing the competency-based system. I think the people in that State are speaking with their intelligence and not from some emotional or ill-informed debate that might lead them to do something else.

Mr Speaker, the Greens' amendment is badly thought out, if thought out at all. It is ill founded. It is unacceptable because it would simply negate the thrust of this Bill through which this Government is trying to improve driver skills amongst our driving population and make drivers more aware of how they need to behave when they get their licence and get out on the street and mix it with the rest of us. I think that the Government's proposal is soundly based, and I urge the Assembly to adopt it.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (4.46): Mr Speaker, the Opposition will not be supporting Ms Horodny's amendment, but our reasons might be slightly different from those of the Government. I obviously cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of particular anecdotes that Ms Horodny referred to; but I have no doubt that things like the situations that she described do occur, and I am not going to be as quick as the Government is to say that sort of thing never happens. But, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the Greens' amendment will cure that problem. In fact, I would even go the other way and suggest that the Greens' amendment is likely to push more learner drivers back onto the old system, which has exactly the problems Ms Horodny was talking about, and away from the new system, which, if anything, I think, is likely to be better.

Let me amplify that. The simple fact is that the kinds of problems that Ms Horodny referred to about sexual harassment and exploitation are complex. We have all been grappling with these kinds of problems for years, in our workplaces, in our recreational activities and in our relationships. These are very difficult problems and they will not be solved simply by saying, "At the end of your 10 lessons, your 15 lessons or your 60 lessons you are going to go and do a drivers test". I fail to see how the prospect of having to sit an approved driving test at the end of a competency-based process is going to make the possibility of sexual harassment or physical abuse or other kinds of exploitation less likely during the driving lesson. I am very concerned about the kinds of issues that Ms Horodny raised, but I do not think that her solution will cure the problem.

I said before that I thought that perhaps Ms Horodny's solution might have the opposite effect from the effect that she thinks it might have. Let me explain why. The competency-based system which is being brought in involves a system of accreditation. Through that system of accreditation people proposing to learn to drive will be able to choose an accredited driving instructor who can take them through the competency-based approach or a non-accredited driver who can teach them to drive but who, at the end of the day, will have to send them off to be tested by a government tester.

I would have thought, Mr Speaker, under the circumstances, and taking account of the process of accreditation, the powers in the Act and the training programs that are involved, that you might be able to have a greater degree of confidence in the propriety of someone who is an accredited driving instructor because they now have something to lose. If you are going to learn to drive and you have the choice between using an accredited instructor and using a non-accredited instructor, there will be a natural tendency for people to choose the accredited instructors because they can get their

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