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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3905 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

On the separation of powers: In my second speech on this matter in the detail stage I went through the history of what had occurred in the courts and showed that this is not something particularly new in motor traffic law. I do not think I need to say anything more in relation to that.

My colleague Michael Moore made a comment about police being judge and jury. That is not so. Quite clearly, if a person is aggrieved and does not think they have committed an offence, they can defend a charge against them. Then it is up to a court to decide whether they are guilty or not guilty. All this legislation does is lay down certain minimum penalties and certain requirements of the court.

With first offenders, someone with an unblemished record, the rule of thumb for 20 years was that they would get a 556A, which means that basically they kept their licence. They might have got a bond; they might have had to pay a small amount of money as part of that bond; they might have had to do nothing. But they basically kept their licence. Even if they are a first offender and they are subject to the minimum mandatory disqualification - be it one month, two months, three months or six months - they still have the option, if the circumstances warrant it, of getting a special licence. I think that is fair enough.

That brings me to the point Mr Kaine made about people being responsible for their actions. I do not think anyone here would begrudge someone who would not qualify for 556A, who would be subject to a fine and, say, a minimum mandatory suspension of licence, getting a special licence if, in the circumstances, it was warranted. I am sure that any reasonable court, not only in the ACT but elsewhere, would give such a person a licence with conditions if it was their first offence.

Where do we draw the line? Where do those opposite want us to draw the line? Why should someone who commits a second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth offence continue to get the benefit of a special licence? That is just crazy. There comes a time when people have to be responsible for their own actions. By all means, we need some provisions in the system to ensure that a first offender, someone who transgresses once, gets the benefit of some doubt; that their family is not penalised; and that the courts exercise leniency. I think there is provision in this legislation for that, just as there was in the previous Acts that governed this area.

Surely, if someone continues to offend, that is not only thumbing their nose at the court; it is thumbing their nose at the system; it is thumbing their nose at their fellow citizens. There does come a time when people need to be responsible and to be held responsible for their actions. I wholeheartedly endorse the comments that Mr Kaine made in that regard.

We have a responsibility to the community. What does the community expect us to do? The tightening up over the 20 years or so of road traffic rules, especially rules relating to drink-driving and the more serious aspects of dangerous driving, has been largely endorsed by the Australian community. Mr and Mrs Average Australia expect legislation like this to be passed on a national scale, and Mr and Mrs Average Canberra

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