Page 1908 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
demerit points and drivers licence databases. Apart from steps such as adjudicating images from traffic cameras, and assessing applications for withdrawal, granting extensions of time and assessing infringement notice declarations, all of which must be undertaken by trained and appropriately authorised staff, the system is mostly automated.
The legal framework in which the original model was developed has also changed significantly, not least with the adoption of the uniform Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the existing scheme is not working optimally. In particular, it is apparent that the scheme is not adequately supporting the demerit point scheme.
There are two main issues of concern. Firstly, there is the capacity for the use of false or misleading infringement notice declarations to enable a driver to evade liability for demerit points. Secondly, there is the failure by corporations to identify the drivers of corporately registered vehicles involved in demerit point offences. The outcome of both practices is the same: the driver who is responsible for a demerit points offence is able to avoid having those points recorded against his or her licence, and the integrity of the demerit points scheme is compromised as a result.
This bill therefore will provide a stronger platform for the enforcement of the road transport legislation than the existing infringement notice scheme, to complement the legislative reforms that have already been undertaken over the last three years.
The misuse of infringement notice declarations to avoid demerit points is not unique to the territory. New South Wales has identified similar problems. Just a few weeks ago, in April this year, New South Wales passed legislation intended to discourage corporations from failing to identify the drivers of vehicles involved in camera-detected offences. The New South Wales law increases the infringement notice penalty payable by corporations for camera-detected offences to five times the penalty amount that applies to individuals.
The same approach of applying a penalty amount that is five times the individual rate to a corporation has been practised in the ACT for many years. It existed under the former Motor Traffic Act but was inadvertently repealed in 2000 with the replacement of that act by the road transport legislation. It was subsequently reinstated in 2003 through amendments to the Road Transport (Offences) Regulation. The explanatory statement for those amendments in 2003 stated:
The corporate multiplier also provides an incentive for corporations to identify the driver responsible for the offence, thereby allowing the correct allocation of demerit points following camera detected offences.
The ACT’s experience is that notwithstanding the application of higher corporate penalties, on more than 1,500 occasions each year in recent years corporations have elected to pay the increased penalty rather than identify the driver involved in a demerit points offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video