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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3979 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

and seizure of the vehicle for three months for first offenders, and 12 months' disqualification and forfeiture of the vehicle for repeat offenders.

As Mr Moore and others have said, this is a very extreme reaction. It concerns me that Mr Rugendyke wants to use the very big stick against people who do burnouts of seizing their vehicle when more dangerous activities on our roads are subject to lower penalties. The question that has to be asked is: Which offence is creating a greater public safety risk? Whilst we do not condone burnouts, I do not think that they are in the same league as speeding and drink-driving in terms of risk to public safety.

It is very interesting to compare the penalties for speeding with those for drink-driving. The fine for first offenders with a blood alcohol content over 0.05 is only $500 and loss of licence for six months. For over 0.08 it is $1,000 and 12 months' disqualification. A report put out by the Federal Office of Road Safety at the end of 1997 on travelling speed and the risk of crash involvement found that in a 60 kilometres an hour speed limit area the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each five kilometres an hour increase in travelling speed above 60 kilometres an hour. It also found that speeding at even five kilometres an hour above the 60 kilometres an hour speed limit caused more crashes than drink driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.05. Mr Smyth might be interested in that and I ask him to listen because he is the one who has responsibility for these issues. It is very interesting information and I am happy to give him the details of this report.

A person driving at a speed of 72 kilometres an hour in a 60 kilometres an hour zone has the same risk of involvement in a casualty crash as a person driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.12. We had a discussion yesterday about drink-driving. The reason I am bringing this information to the attention of members is that we are not acknowledging the danger of speed in the same way. The amazing thing is that such a drink-driver would receive a fine of $1,000 or up to six months' imprisonment and a 12-month licence disqualification. Under the road transport legislation passed yesterday the person will receive a mandatory disqualification of three months and no opportunity to get a restricted licence. However, if the person was caught speeding at 72 kilometres an hour - the same risk is there - only 12 kilometres an hour over the speed limit, there would be a fine of $112 and one demerit point. Surely something is out of balance there.

There is also the question of why the existing offences in the Act cannot be used for burnouts and racing. Getting back to Mr Rugendyke's legislation, there are already offences for reckless driving, negligent driving and dangerous driving, 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.

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. What is that saying, once again, about what this Assembly thinks is the role of the courts? We had that discussion yesterday. It was interesting to hear that Mr Moore would even consider seizure for a couple of days in light of his position yesterday. We know that there can be real issues for people not having a car. Once again, we have a penalty being

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