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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5028 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

seriously abiding by the motor traffic laws, the dangers of driving on the roads or the dangers of drink-driving, speeding or driving without due care and attention. As long as everybody in this place acknowledges that everybody else in this place thinks those things are dangerous, then there is no reason why any message should go out to the community at large that these things are not dangerous. It will happen only if some people in this place choose to say that other people in this place do not take those issues seriously.

This is about the rule of law. It is about whether the offences which are prescribed in the Motor Traffic Regulations, in a considered way, are going to be applied according to that schedule or whether, at the Minister's whim, different penalties should apply. That is exactly what it is about, nothing more complicated than that. It is about consistency in the rule of law. Mr Osborne can talk all he likes. He can thump the law and order drum, as the Minister does, but the situation does not change. The majority of road users have no idea what penalty is going to apply for a motor traffic offence. They all know that they should not speed, but they do not know what the penalty is until the police officer pulls them over and writes out the ticket. That is the case for the vast majority of road users.

If we are serious about this, we have to focus on things that work. The thing that works is educating people about the dangers of breaking the motor traffic laws, educating people about the importance of abiding by motor traffic regulations, especially at times when there are a lot of other road users, and having a significant police presence which persuades people that it is not worth taking the risk. People who do not believe in the rules will be persuaded. They will know that it is not worth taking the risk, because they will be caught. They are the key elements of an effective policy. Arbitrarily changing the rules will not make a difference.

Mrs Carnell said, and I think this sums up Mrs Carnell's position, "It does not make any difference. We hurt nobody by having double demerit points. It does not matter. Why not do it?". That is not true. The Motor Traffic Act sets out penalties according to the seriousness of offences. If on a given day of the year we unfairly, arbitrarily and unjustly impose a more onerous penalty on people it could result in some people's licence being disqualified, not because of the seriousness of their offence but because the Minister thinks that today is a particularly bad day and they should get double points. That is the law that we are talking about. Fairness is about a given offence being punished in a consistent way. It is not about unjustly imposing a higher penalty because of the particular day of the year. It is just wrong for the Chief Minister to say that no injustice is done by this law. Of course an injustice is done by this law. It arbitrarily changes the penalty without regard to the seriousness of the offence. That takes me back to the Liberal Party's promise at the last election, a promise which I think we ought to take seriously. The Liberal Party said 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.

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