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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3011 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Who knows where he got those statistics. This is the critical part:

But in September, the Australian Federal Police's most senior traffic officer, Superintendent Peter McDonald said, "As far as random breath testing goes, we've done 11,500 more tests this year than at the same time last year".

That is an awful lot more tests; and congratulations, I think it is good. He continued:

"What's pleasing about that is that the number of positive tests is only 647 - that's down by 100".

So things were not getting worse; they were actually getting much better. Obviously, Mr Speaker, you and the previous Government, and I in my role in this Assembly, were sending the right message, and we are going to continue sending that right message.

Speaking of messages - I am glad you raised the issue, Mr Speaker - Mr Kaine also mentioned that we had to send a message to the magistrates as well as a message to the people. Sending a message to the magistrates is fine and we can do that by changing the penalties, but cutting the magistrates out of being able to make a decision is not fine. In fact, it is an affront to the way democracy works. It is an affront to the separation of powers. It is not about the distinctions between what the legislature does in terms of legislating in the general and what a court does, which is apply the specific. Yes, through both of these pieces of amendments we will be sending a very strong message to the magistrates - and a message is what it is - about increased penalties; but we will not be saying, "You have no say in how people are charged or penalised".

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify something that Mr Kaine said that I believe is incorrect. I know it is incorrect. He said that the use of section 556A means that the charge will not be taken into account. The charge will still be taken into account by a magistrate. The trouble with the way it was worded in this Bill was that, even though there was no conviction recorded, it automatically counted as though it were a conviction. Suddenly, it was treated as a conviction. Now, with the magistrate able to see it, he will be able to look at the reasons why the court in the previous session said, "No, we will allow a section 556A". So you will be pleased to know, Mr Kaine, that it will still be taken into account, and that will help us take a very strong message to people that drink-driving is not on. I am with you all the way on that.

MR WHITECROSS (9.28): Mr Speaker, I rise briefly to correct a couple of things in what the Minister said. The Minister seemed to have got the impression that the Labor Party was supporting this legislation because it was going to send a message. We are supporting this Bill because we think it improves the legislation and provides for a more logical and rational scheme for dealing with drink-driving. In particular, it eliminates the indefinite penalties for second offenders which existed previously and the unnecessary court applications for second offenders to get their licences back, and replaces them with an appropriate scaled set of maximum penalties for second offences according to blood alcohol limit. We think that is okay.

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