Page 428 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
our law to be to consistent with New South Wales law. However, in this case I would suggest that the consistency factor certainly applies.
Over the past year we became aware of a couple of terrible incidents of drivers failing to stop. I do not want to go into those incidents now but I congratulate the government on responding to those issues by cleaning up our law. These new penalties will reflect society’s attitude toward such accidents and the fact that we want to send a message to drivers. Drivers need to be aware that with the privilege of being granted a licence comes the responsibility of being a driver. Young drivers must be made aware of the fact that cars, unwittingly or unintentionally, can become potential weapons. It is important for us to send a strong message to young drivers, some of whom are oblivious of their responsibilities.
I hope that the increased penalties in this amending bill will serve to educate new drivers. Nobody is blaming new drivers; they have simply been granted a privilege. They have been given a licence but they are still not necessarily mature enough to be aware of their responsibilities. This law might go some way towards educating young drivers. If they are involved in an accident they must render the necessary assistance. They do not have to have first aid certificates or save somebody’s life on the spot but they need to remain at the site and, as the minister just indicated across the chamber, they need to phone for assistance.
Young drivers or old drivers must do everything in their power to seek assistance. They must stay at the scene and render whatever assistance they can. Nobody expects people who cannot cope well with an accident to perform miracles. We all know that some people do not react very well to accident scenes, but they have to stay at the site. This law might go some way towards addressing that issue. It is lamentable that over the past decade or half a decade we have seen an increased recklessness on the part of drivers. We therefore welcome an increase to any of the penalties relating to reckless, culpable or negligent driving. Opposition members support this law. We thank the government for introducing this legislation and we encourage it to be open-minded about further increasing those penalties.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.10): It appears that this bill was introduced as a consequence of the terrible and sad death of Clea Rose in 2005, when it became apparent to the wider community that the maximum penalty the young driver faced for failing to stop after fatally injuring her was six months imprisonment. I should note that I have no doubt that in this case an increased penalty would have been unlikely to have made that young man any more likely to stop after the accident. After all, a police car was involved. In many states we have seen enough incidents involving police. These kinds of police chases often exacerbate the dangerous behaviour of the driver concerned.
Nonetheless, it is fair to say that sentencing serves a number of purposes beyond that of deterrence. For instance, it sends an important signal to the community that such an offence is taken seriously. I heard quite a few sighs of amazement when people found out that only a six-month penalty applied in that case. In an extended sentence it is also important to know that an offender is being worked with to reduce the risk-taking behaviour that might have caused the accident in the first place. Not all these kinds of accidents are the result of risk-taking behaviour. They are not all the result of excess
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .