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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3017 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, amendments Nos 4 and 5 convert provisions which make disqualifications automatic into provisions which give the court power to impose disqualifications. So, this change ensures the independence of the courts in their role in determining appropriate penalties in individual cases. Amendments Nos 6 to 9 prevent automatic disqualification from access to special licences. The offender still remains able to apply for a special licence, although the chances of getting one are very slim.

Amendment No. 10 provides that, after breach of a condition of a special licence, and penalisation for that breach, the special licence is not automatically cancelled but, instead, can be cancelled as the court directs. We would expect, in 99.9 per cent of the cases, that the court would do exactly that. It is up to the court, and that is what these amendments are really about.

Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise again the amount of time and effort that other members have put into these amendments. Although they are put up in my name, the amount of work that Mr Whitecross and Ms Horodny put in is not to be underestimated. I had discussions with Mr Osborne. He was not happy with my amendments. I think that is a fair description; but he can talk about that.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (9.38): The essential element of Mr Moore's amendments in connection with the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) is that they negate a section of our Bill which says, essentially, that, if you have committed offences and you fit into certain categories, you are not entitled to apply for a temporary licence at all. That does not exclude everybody, however, because under section 11B in our Bill there are certain people who can. But we felt that there were some people who, having lost their licence - having had it suspended - should not be entitled to get their licence back during the period of suspension. That is the message that says, "If you commit one of these offences, you lose your licence".

Just as an example, two of the classes of persons who, we thought, should not be able to get their licences back are people whose driving licence is suspended under subsection 162E(1) and people whose driving licence is suspended under subsection 180F(1). These are people who have run up enormous fines bills that they have refused to pay. Because of that, they have fronted up to renew their licence, and they have had their licence suspended. Why would we put them back on the road? We take their licence because they are irresponsible. They run up enormous bills for fines and they do not believe that they should be held accountable for it. We take their licence away, and now Mr Moore, Mr Whitecross and Ms Horodny say, "You give them back their licence. All they do is front up and ask for a special licence, and you give it back".

These sorts of people are included in the classes of people about whom Mr Moore, Ms Horodny and Mr Whitecross say, "You take their licence away, but then you give it back to them". Why? What is the justice in that? There is no logic whatsoever to that. So, Mr Speaker, by deleting that category of people who we say should not get their licences back once they have been suspended and putting them back into the mill, we are going back to the situation where, one year from now, we will have about 1,200 people who have had their licences taken away and 450 will have gone around the back, have gone in the back door, and have got their licences back. Nothing will have changed.

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