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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 3403 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There is also the question of why cannot the existing offences in the Act be used for burnouts and racing. There are already offences for reckless driving, negligent driving, careless or inconsiderate driving, and driving without full control of the motor vehicle, with fines ranging from $100 to $1,000. Surely the deterrent already exists for these activities. Perhaps the problem is more with having enough police available to deal with these incidents rather than the provisions of the Act.

Regarding the detail of the Bill, proposed new section 119 is poorly drafted. It includes prohibitions on attempting to break any motor vehicle speed record and trialling the speed of a motor vehicle, which, in the context in which this Bill is going to be applied, seems rather meaningless. What speed records exist for driving down Lonsdale Street? Surely a person driving over 60 kilometres an hour down Lonsdale Street is already breaking the law. The prohibition on competing in a trial designed to test the skill of a driver or the reliability or mechanical condition of a vehicle is written so broadly that it could potentially prohibit driving lessons or mechanics testing their repaired vehicles.

The new part of the Bill for the approval of regulated road events is a replacement for the existing section 217 of the Act, but in the process a number of worrying changes have been made. In the old section 217, responsibility for approval of events was held by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, but this Bill seeks to transfer this power to the Chief Police Officer. No reason has been given for this transfer of power or why the police would be better at doing this job than the registrar. It is also a major worry that the previous right to appeal to the AAT has been omitted by this Bill.

The approval process also opens up a can of worms by actually allowing people to get a permit to undertake the activities that Mr Rugendyke wants banned, like burnouts and speed races. If burnouts are so intrinsically bad, why would we want to set up a process to give people permits to do them on public streets? Surely the place for these activities is in the Summernats grounds, not on public streets. I would have similar views about car races like the FAI rally, which should be held out in the pine forests and not on public roads around the centre of Canberra. I am also surprised that not only is a permit required for an organised event but also that each participant in the event has to get a permit, which seems to be a doubling up of the administrative processes that need to occur.

I also have concerns about the civil liberties aspect of police being able to seize a person's vehicle for up to 28 days before an offence has been proven in court. I would have thought that the behaviour of the driver of the vehicle was the problem, not the car, which is just the means of transport. If the driver is breaking the law it would seem more consistent to take away their licence to drive, as occurs under drink-driving laws, rather than take their car away.

Overall, I think this Bill has been badly drafted, and I am not convinced that there is a desperate need for the police to have these powers when there are other offences already available in the Motor Traffic Act.

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