MOTOR VEHICLES (PRACTICAL DRIVING TESTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2009. Page 2105.)

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:06): I want to say a few things about this bill. First, the current Motor Vehicles Act requires that certain health professionals have to give notifications when people, according to them, are unfit to drive, and drivers over the age of 70 are required to undergo a medical assessment of driver fitness. All drivers over the age of 85 are required to take an annual practical assessment if they drive or ride any motor vehicle other than a car. I am sure all of us have relatives or friends who are a little older and appreciate the sensitivity involved in removing or potentially removing the degree of autonomy that a driver's licence provides to people of that age. I have some concerns about the extending of practical driving assessment provisions to include periodic compulsory practical driving assessments for people over the age of 85.

The statistics are an important element in this, because before we go around, first of all, imposing more red tape on people and, secondly, challenging this very important degree of autonomy that people derive from their holding a driver's licence, I think we have to be very sure that there is a degree of danger or risk to the community that is of such a level as to require that interference with the otherwise free behaviour of people.

I have to confess that, in the last year or so—and I have read a number of things over the last year, and I do not want to elevate this bill to something that is a major philosophical milestone, but there is a book called The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. In that book Mr Hayek discusses the merits or otherwise of governments interfering unnecessarily with the liberties of individuals.

An honourable member: Does he talk about the bikies bill?

Mr RAU: No; he does not specifically talk about that bill. However, he does talk about the role of government and the question as to whether government should make it its business to go around intruding into the private lives of individuals. I have to say that I have some sympathy for the general thrust of his arguments in that, if there is not a good reason in the public interest and if there is not a genuine risk to people, which might for example require the criminal law to make it illegal to go around murdering or assaulting people (which is entirely reasonable, and even Mr Hayek would be happy with that), we have to be very careful about intruding into the private domain of individuals.

I realise and recognise that a motor vehicle in the hands of the wrong person is obviously a lethal weapon. The problem I have with the honourable member's proposal is that I am not convinced that there are statistics or objective evidence sufficient to warrant classifying this particular group of individuals as being more of a danger, in terms of the risk to which they expose other road users, than other groups.

In fact, as far as I am aware, the most dangerous group of people on the road is young men between 18 and 25 (I think the statistics bear that out), because they kill themselves at an enormous rate. In fact, the honourable member, as a member of the legal profession, on many occasions would have had to have regard to actuarial material in assessing future economic loss, or whatever, in relation to a claim by a plaintiff, and there is a demographic hole in respect of males clustered around this age group of 18 to 25. The life expectancy of a male before they get to 25 is in some respects less than it is after they have turned 25. That sounds a bit odd, but the fact is that when you pass through that democratic danger zone, which is 18 to 25, and you pop out the other end, the risk of you then dying from one of those reckless self-induced injuries has dramatically reduced and you are left with the perils of age and the sort of risk that any person has every time they wake up in the morning and leave their home.

Whilst it is clear that that sort of demographic material is available and supports restrictions on people aged 18 to 25 (and I think the legislative framework we have does impose a fair degree of scrutiny over those drivers, for good reason), I am not convinced that the particular demographic that this is directing its attention towards is of sufficient identified risk to warrant this sort of measure.

I know that in his life the honourable member must have had elderly friends, relatives, parents, friends of parents, grandparents, and so on, and he would be aware that every bit of autonomy these people have, particularly as they are getting on, is a very important element in their lives. If they are in a hostel (not a nursing home), the fact that they are given a walker makes a huge difference to their life, because it means they can move around themselves without having to press a button or call for assistance. The fact that they have a bed that has poles on it, which enables them to get up or move around in their bed or get to the toilet by themselves, which to those of us in here who are able-bodied would seem to be an insignificant matter, is not an insignificant matter. It is a very, very significant matter for those people. You can imagine the impact of depriving a person or, at least, threatening to deprive a person of the autonomy that they derive from having a licence to drive a motor vehicle.

When I am balancing this up, I am balancing up in the mind of the elderly person who might be affected by this measure the threat, the fear, the concern, the anguish and the anxiety, perhaps, that this prospect might raise to them on the one hand and, on the other, the mischief that will be fairly addressed by the suggested measure. With respect to the honourable member, when I go through that balancing exercise, I feel as if the mischief that the measure is directed towards does not outweigh the concern that all of these people will have raised in their mind.

We all know that elderly people—and all of us are rapidly entering that zone—tend to dwell on things, become concerned about things that they should not be concerned about. If they hear something on the radio about anything at all, then they fret and tell their friends about it, and then they all worry about it. We have seen it countless times on countless different measures.

I am concerned about the idea of this measure going through and raising a degree of anxiety amongst people who are probably quite okay as drivers. If they really have a problem, their GP or a family member, if they are sufficiently concerned, will probably put up the flag for them. I know they are sensitive issues, as well, but on balance this measure does not stack up because the interference with the freedom of these people to get on with their life in a way which is free of anguish, fear and anxiety and which maintains their autonomy outweighs the benefit (which I perceive from the statistical background) attached to the measure proposed.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:16): In my second reading explanation, I set out the evidence which supports the proposition I have put forward to the parliament requiring people over 85 to undergo practical driving tests every two years. There is a balancing act, as the member for Enfield recognised, between people's individual rights and the interests of the state in having safety on our roads.

I would suggest that the evidence supports this measure, which has been enacted in other states. The member for Enfield draws support from Mr Hayek, who has something of a fundamentalist hue when it comes to libertarianism. If that argument were to be followed through to its full extent, the member for Enfield's and Mr Hayek's preference would probably be to live in prehistoric times when the law of the jungle prevailed rather than the rule of law.

In any case, I do sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the member for Enfield in favour of individual rights against domination by the state unduly, the undue interference of the state in the private affairs of people. However, I have very good reason to believe that the member for Enfield's colleagues on the government benches do not share his concern for civil liberties, so I will now seek to test this with a vote.

Second reading negatived.