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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3881 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

mandatory sentences, it is going to be wrong much more often, because you are not applying the law to individual cases. That is the problem with the legislation which we have in front of us to day. On the one hand, Mr Smyth is saying that we ought to have incorporated Mr Rugendyke's burnout legislation. On the other hand, we have Mr Stefaniak saying, "We have to ensure that our legislation is consistent with the rest of Australia. We cannot do anything that is different from the rest of Australia". The two are inconsistent.

Mr Smyth: Other jurisdictions have burnout legislation.

MR MOORE: Mr Smyth interjects that we are talking about nationally consistent road rules. It may well be. It seems to me that the most important issue is the one that Mr Smyth raised. He said that you can get a special licence but you cannot get a special life. I understand his point of view. He said that the matter had been proved since Mr Somes said that we ought not take this particular stance because he will have to give out restricted licences. I say that is bollocks. The legislation allowed him to apply the law appropriately, and that is what he should have been doing.

What is the result of what happened in 1997 if you are talking about lives? Mr Smyth reminded me a minute ago about the number of deaths in the ACT from road accidents. We have a small number of people, so it is hard to keep these statistics, and they will go up and down, but we have seen a significant drop in road accidents. We cannot tell yet whether that is a trend, but it is worth noting that reduction. We also have the old fallback to the Crimes Act, section 556A. Somebody can appear before the court and say, "We appeal to the court's mercy for 556A". Overall, I do not disagree with that protection. I have to say that this notion of mandatory minimum sentencing, this notion of taking power away from the courts and holding it in the hands of the legislature, is still entirely inappropriate.

Finally, I would like to make a point to the conservatives who think they are going to save lives on this issue. They believe they will save lives by not issuing restrictive licences because people will not drive. Wrong. This is what you need to drive a car - the keys. When people do not receive a restricted licence, what they will do, without any insurance, without all the other support, is get in and drive the car. I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in reality. That is always a problem, no matter how you set out this piece of legislation.

I think the debate has been fully had. If this amendment is lost, I will not be putting the other amendments because that would be pointless. They have been circulated, and I think members know that this is an issue right through the Act. I am certainly keen to make sure that we do have a vote on this particular item.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Moore's ) be agreed to.

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