Page 1641 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Currently, dangerous conduct on our roads is subject to significant penalties, but only if it results in grievous bodily harm or death. Our current laws focus on the effect of dangerous actions by the driver rather than the actual conduct itself. So it is about the consequence rather than the behaviour. In a way, it is a tragic lottery, in that a dangerous driver only gets an appropriate punishment when death or serious injury have occurred. The same dangerous driver may avoid serious punishment when no catastrophic consequence has resulted, although the behaviour has been the same.
This bill makes an attempt to remove this element of chance in penalising a driver who does drive dangerously under certain circumstances by introducing a list of aggravating factors for the act of dangerous driving. It also introduces higher maximum penalties applying when those aggravating factors are present.
The six aggravating factors for the offence introduced by this bill are: when the person, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a request or a signal given by a police officer to stop the vehicle; someone was intoxicated by alcohol and/or drugs; the person was driving with a person younger than 17 years in the vehicle; the person was a repeat offender; the person was driving in a way that put at risk the safety of a vulnerable road user; and the person was driving at a speed that exceeded the speed limit by more than 30 per cent. I will address each of those in turn.
With respect to the first factor—when the person, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a request or signal given by a police officer to stop—the opposition supports this. If someone is engaging in essentially a pursuit with the police then that should incur an aggravating offence. On the second factor—when someone is intoxicated by alcohol and drugs—the opposition supports that. In the case of people who knowingly drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, clearly the courts deserve a greater ability to impose penalties on them.
With respect to someone driving with a person younger than 17 years old in the vehicle, there are a couple of reasons why that should merit being an aggravated offence. Firstly, a child does not get to choose whether they are in the vehicle in many circumstances and are put at increased risk if someone is driving dangerously. Also, particularly for older children, it may have a significant influence on their behaviour. If an older child observes those sorts of behaviours, they might consider them to be normal and they might potentially eventually perpetuate this in their own driving behaviour. With respect to someone who is a repeat offender, I think it is an accepted paradigm that there needs to be an ability for the courts to deal more severely with those people.
The fifth aggravated offence is that of putting at risk the safety of a vulnerable road user, and I do have concerns about this. I foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment to remove this clause, for two principal reasons. Firstly, the area of vulnerable road users is currently subject to an inquiry. That inquiry report, as I understand it, is going to be tabled today and the government is yet to respond to it. I know this has occurred in a couple of other circumstances. The inquiry has heard evidence, it is yet to report and the government is yet to respond, but the government is putting forward legislation relating to vulnerable road users. I think it would be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video