Page 3431 - Week 09 - Thursday, 20 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Amendment No 2 agreed to.
Amendment No 3.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.32): The Greens will support this amendment. It ensures that the legislation will more accurately reflect the intention conveyed through the explanatory statement by specifying where an authorisation to continue a journey can be given conditionally. We are happy also to support the government’s minor amendment to this amendment.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (10.33): I might just provide some background. Amendment 3 proposes to omit clause 137(3) and to insert a replacement subclause which better describes the circumstances under which a condition of authorisation is given to a driver to continue a journey where the vehicle is in minor breach of loading requirements.
Clause 137 deals with authorisations to continue a journey for breaches in a minor risk category. By definition, a minor risk breach would not involve an appreciable risk of harm to public safety, the environment, road infrastructure or public amenity, the definition for which is provided at subclause 109(2)(b).
The government does not have any issues with the intent of the amendment which Mr Coe proposes in that it seeks to better explain the circumstances when an authorised officer will allow a vehicle in minor breach to continue on its journey. However, the proposed amendment suggests that the conditions that may be attached to the authorisation to continue the journey are applied to minimise an appreciable risk of harm to public safety et cetera.
If the authorised officer was to believe that the breach did involve an appreciable risk of harm to the public then the vehicle will not be allowed to proceed as the breach would fall into the substantial or severe breach categories. An officer is not authorised to allow a vehicle that falls into these categories to proceed without rectification of the breach.
To sum up, the government supports the proposed amendment but with a proviso. We believe that Mr Coe’s amendment should be amended to be consistent with the context of the clause, which is about vehicles which are in the minor risk breach category. That can be achieved by omitting the words “an appreciable” from the words of the proposed subclause. The subclause would read:
An authorisation may be conditional if the police officer or authorised person believes on reasonable grounds the particular conditions are necessary—
and Mr Coe proposes to add—
to minimise an appreciable risk of harm to public safety, the environment, road infrastructure or public amenity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .