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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3884 ..

Clause 67

MR HARGREAVES (5.28): I move:

We seek to remove subclauses (1), (2) and (3) only. This comes back to the words "Persons not eligible to apply or be issued with a restricted licence". It talks about relevant periods. When we first looked at this, we talked about whether or not it applied to repeat offenders and it looked like a pretty reasonable idea, but it is not necessarily. This takes away any opportunity for a person on the fringes to apply to the courts.

We accept many of the things that have been said in here about those people who are habitual, who will constantly go out there and get themselves tanked and be a danger on the road. We have no difficulty with those sorts of sanctions. But not every person that gets pinged for these sorts of things on a second offence is an habitual criminal on the roads. Occasionally people are just victims; they are being silly or stupid and are only marginally over it. If we take away their right to apply to the court - for the court to say to them, "Well okay, you've been stupid but we won't give you the full weight" - what kind of a society are we?

I have no problems chucking the book at people if they come up with a second culpable driving offence or if they keep coming out with 0.185s. But I have a hell of a lot of problem with chucking the book at someone that has a reading of 0.09, 0.06, or 0.09. These smaller issues need treatment in a different way. What about the person that quite genuinely recognises that he has a drinking problem, who comes up the second time and is prepared to go into rehabilitation?

Mr Rugendyke has an enormous amount of compassion for families and young kids in difficulty and I sincerely applaud that, but I do not see the same compassion here. Mr Osborne runs around the place pontificating about the extent to which he loves his community, and I do not see that same compassion here. What about those people on the edges? What about those people whose lifestyles, like our own, sometimes make us worry a little bit? We say, "Oh, just grab a cab. Go and do this, go and do that". It is not that easy sometimes. Let us look at it on the fringes. We do not have to have a hard and fast rule about this; that is why we have the courts.

If Magistrate Somes is doing his job so badly that he has to get this legislature to do his job, then I suggest he think long and seriously about his career in the courts. We do not have to go to these lengths. We can have the same sorts of sanctions in this legislation. All we have to do is allow someone to apply to the courts to have a look at all the circumstances.

This Act has no way of being able to judge the differences in circumstance. It is a mindless, heartless piece of legislation and it is being supported by mindless, heartless people such as this Minister on the other side who comes up with emotive comments such as: "You don't get a chance for a restricted life". This is the most emotive claptrap I have ever heard, and I hope never to hear it again, but I guess I will: I will be subjected to drivel such as that in my time here. If those opposite cannot run their argument by

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