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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1704 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I mentioned the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I looked at the terms of reference for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to see whether we need to change them to make sure that the committee looks for this sort of issue. Perhaps we need to look at doing that. That might be part of the problem. The terms of reference do give the committee a brief to monitor legislation for provisions which unduly trample on citizens' rights. In a broad sense, that would cover it. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has fairly tight terms of reference, but I think that this legislation says to us that we really need to go back to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's terms of reference and ensure that the committee watches for these sorts of things.

Mr Wood: Mr Moore, we will look at your comments.

MR MOORE: I appreciate the interjection of Mr Wood that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee will look at these comments and see how the matter should be dealt with.

I would also like to address briefly the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment) Bill. This Bill's new method of dealing with drink-driving offences is excellent. A grid pattern which gives the different levels of offences and different penalties is a system that makes very good sense. However, I do have some concern about the increasing narrowness of the drink-driving restrictions, processes and penalties. It was only in 1991 that we agreed that we would allow a change from .08 to .05. We really did that under blackmail from the Federal Government. If I remember correctly, they said that if we wanted black spot funding we had to change to .05. More importantly, most of us would have said that a national system of .05, instead of some States having .05 and some .08, was a worthwhile exercise. That is why I supported the change at the time.

I agree with Mr Whitecross that we are beginning to push the penalties beyond where they actually assist in reducing social harm. The difference between .05 and .08 is the difference between having two glasses of wine with a meal and having two glasses of wine with a meal where you did not eat very much because you were distracted by a phone call or something. You should not go over .05. It is against the law and you should be penalised; but to what extent you should be penalised is the question.

There are also some significant justice issues to address in relation to this Bill. The most important one - and Mr Whitecross mentioned it - is mandatory sentences. Once again, mandatory sentences are simply an unacceptable interference in the role of courts. Paragraph 7(d) proposes a change to the definition of a disqualifying offence. (Extension of time granted) In clause 10, proposed section 34 requires a three-year suspension of a drivers licence and, for repeat offenders, a five-year suspension. It is a very harsh penalty. The section also provides for a mandatory minimum disqualification of six months and, for repeat offenders, 12 months. That mandatory six-month suspension of licence, may mean the loss of somebody's job. Those issues are really important. Should the penalty be such that somebody loses their job?

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