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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5012 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

an offence and it is just as serious an offence regardless of the time of year in which it is committed, and it ought to be treated accordingly. Moreover, Mr Speaker, it has been the view of this Assembly in relation to past matters that offences ought to be treated in a consistent way. Only a few weeks ago, we were considering and voting on a proposition by the Government that certain offences be treated more seriously because of some judgment about the prevalence of the offences. Similarly, it was proposed that certain matters be treated more seriously if it was a second offence and that certain rights that might apply to people be taken away as some sort of deterrent. That is really at the heart of this.

Rather than having a moral which says that the punishment should fit the crime, this regulation, which imposes double demerit points in relation to certain offences at certain times of the year, is saying that deterrence is the issue. The Labor Party just does not accept deterrence as the basis on which these laws should be obeyed. An appropriate penalty should be determined for an appropriate offence, and it should be applied consistently, rather than having a situation where a particular offence is penalised more harshly because of an arbitrary decision by the Minister. That is what the Government is proposing - that a particular offence should be treated more harshly at certain times of the year than at others because the Minister says so.

Mr Speaker, it is my view that we ought to be trying to discourage dangerous behaviour on our roads, whether it is drink-driving, speeding, driving without due care and attention, or driving when you are fatigued and fall asleep at the wheel. Whatever it is, we think that there ought to be laws which deal with these kinds of issues and which ensure that our roads are as safe as possible to drive on. We believe that it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that the community is properly educated about the dangers of dangerous behaviour, speeding, drink-driving and driving without due care and attention, and that the message gets out that those things are dangerous. It ought to be backed up by appropriate police presence to ensure that people understand that, if you break the law, you will be caught. That is the appropriate approach. What is not appropriate is to bring in arbitrary punishments which are designed only as cheap and easy ways of getting around the basic principles of law and order and the rule of law, and which are designed really to get around the Government's responsibility to properly educate the community in relation to the dangers of breaching the Motor Traffic Acts.

Mr Speaker, the other thing which I think ought to be considered by members in this place when considering this law is the Liberal Party's own policy in relation to subordinate legislation. The Liberal Party said in its election manifesto at the last election:

Subordinate instruments such as regulations ... shall only prescribe the most mechanical of operations and in no circumstance should a subordinate instrument create a criminal offence, effect a fundamental change in the law, or redefine rights, obligations or liabilities.

Yet that is what the Government has done in this case. It has arbitrarily changed the penalties in relation to certain offences by regulation, without the benefit of a debate in this place. Not too long ago, we were discussing amendments to the motor traffic laws in the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Act. Of course, those things were in the form of

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