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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1702 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Further, the penalty for breach of conditions of a special probationary licence are very severe indeed. It is lifted to 50 penalty units. It may well be, and I suspect it is the case, that this legislation has been prepared in good faith by officers looking to reflect legislation in other States. I understand that, and I accept those good motives; but I think that we, as legislators, have to say, "Are we looking carefully at these issues? No matter what they do in other States, are we making sure that we are protecting the ordinary rights and the civil liberties of our constituents, and are we protecting our democratic systems at the same time?". Access to the courts, not merely rights once before a judge, should never be ousted without an extraordinarily good cause. Quite simply, I have not heard a good cause.

The second issue that I would like to deal with is one raised by Mr Whitecross - the offence of not carrying a licence. As Mr Whitecross pointed out, there simply has not been a good reason given, other than that there is some administrative benefit to the police. In the meantime, a quite onerous requirement is put upon people to carry their licence. Most of us, when we are driving, normally carry our licence, because we know that if we are pulled over it saves us an awful lot of trouble and bother. Besides, you have it in your wallet or your purse because it provides for identification. Generally, people carry it; but there are plenty of times when perhaps you have been out the back chopping the wood, the axe has broken and you have slipped down to the hardware store in your scungy clothes. Of course, you have not picked up your wallet or licence, because you happen to have $10 in your pocket. You may have slipped out to use the $10 to buy something to quench your thirst, something to bring home to drink. That will bring us to the other Bill in a short while. Mum may have jumped in the car to pop up to the school to pick up the kids, and may not have her licence with her.

We are talking about $145. That is totally out of proportion to the kind of offence that we are talking about. It is too onerous for the small number of people. Most drivers carry their licence. If they do not have it with them and they get pulled over, they have to go to the police station and show the police officer their licence. When a police officer pulls somebody over, he can look at the number plate on the car, phone in and get a report on the car.

Mr Berry: He can ask you for your name.

MR MOORE: In this situation, as I recall, the police officer can ask you for your name, unlike when he or she pulls you up in the street when you are not driving your car. This is a particularly onerous penalty which we simply do not need.

There is a further problem with clauses 12, 13 and 15, in terms of interference with the discretion of the courts. Paragraph 12(c) removes the court's discretion to decide, of its own initiative, that an applicant is suitable to be granted a probationary licence. Clause 13, proposed new subsection (4), imposes an additional disqualification from holding a special licence where a licence is cancelled for demerit points. That is yet another interference with the discretion of the courts to make suitable orders. In clause 15, proposed section 191H has the effect of a mandatory sentence.

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