HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DRIVING) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 5.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do have a couple of other questions on this clause but, before I do, with the indulgence of the Chair, I think the member for Hammond has a question on clause 4.

The CHAIR: I am sure we can take that into account.

Mr PEDERICK: I thank you for your indulgence. I had a thought today, Attorney-General, in regard to clause 4, which is an amendment to section 19A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, causing death or harm by use of a vehicle or vessel. I thought of another situation that occurs on pretty well every property in the state, and that is spotlighting, where people will be present on the back of a vehicle shooting rabbits.

Mr Treloar: Or camels.

Mr PEDERICK: Or camels, the member for Flinders suggests. There are not too many camels in Hammond, I can assure you.

Mr Whetstone: Or foxes.

Mr PEDERICK: The point is that there can be vehicles with one or two people seated in the front of the vehicle, and there could be two, three or more people standing on the back. Usually they have some frame to be supported with and about. Sadly, occasionally these vehicle can have accidents. My concern in relation to this clause is that, if there was a tragic death with an accident out spotlighting—which, especially in the case, as the member for Chaffey interjected, of chasing a fox, who are very wily creatures, there might be a sudden turn and there could be a rollover. As sad as it would be if there was a death caused by that, would that act, which is more or less a standard procedure as far as spotlighting and getting rid of feral animals on a property, be constituted in your mind as an act to cause aggravated death by dangerous driving?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for his question and my answer to that is, provided that it is the standard practice more or less, I do not see that it would pass the threshold test. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is remember this: the only difference between the law after we pass this—assuming we do—and the law now is potentially that, if you go spotlighting with mates and you kill one of your mates you cannot get pinched, but if you go spotlighting with a bloke you meet on the side of the road that afternoon you can get pinched. I think that is all that changes.

In other words, if it is dangerous enough now to be prosecuted with a stranger on the back of the car, it will now be possible that, if it is your best mate, you will be prosecuted. That is the only difference. The standard of behaviour is not being changed, so people are not expected to stop spotlighting or anything else—people taking reasonable precautions and whatever. We are talking here about a very high standard of misbehaviour.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think the member for Chaffey raised with me the same issue even on the river, if we briefly go back to this question of reckless behaviour or culpable negligence, whichever is going to apply, or other conduct. So, it could be anything under the legislation. I think I did express concern about the fact that there are a number of activities in river sport, for example, which could be seen to be quite dangerous on the face of it—waterskiing. If there are two boats in the water, if there are multiple skiers on the back, coupled with the fact that the surface of the water, of course, is moving, rather than a road surface, which at least is flat.

We have a scenario where even the people who might be 'passengers' on the back of a ski rope could be injured. If somebody sped past a child who was fishing on the side of the river and caused a wake to force them to be pulled into the river and they drowned, then you can see that there would be some connection–you may not know this person at all. However, we could end up with a situation where a whole lot more people who cause injury or death are caught under this legislation. We will be monitoring that aspect of what we would describe as legitimate, normal—but, on the face of it, potentially quite dangerous—recreational activity.

If I can just return then to clause 5, I was asking the Attorney about the consultation and it seemed that the answer from the Attorney was that the request for reform had been made by the police as a consequential matter. Given that there was going to be reform on the death and dangerous driving laws, then the police pursuit was coming to fall into line.

My understanding from the briefing, Attorney, is that the request for this extension (if I can put it that way) of the escaping police pursuit laws had actually been made by SAPOL back in December last year. I am not sure when you had made a determination to change the law to deal with matters that the DPP had raised, but I am particularly concerned not that those two very relevant bodies to these matters had been consulted or had put in their request but that, as I understand it, the Law Society has not been sent a copy of this bill. If that is the case, why were they excluded from the consultation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know whether or not the Law Society has been consulted. The standard procedure with the office since I have been Attorney is that we send stuff to the Law Society as a matter of course. If that has not happened in this case, then as far as I am concerned, it is certainly not a product of a deliberate decision not to send them. It may be an oversight by somebody, but that would be the extent of it.

Can I just emphasise again: we are not in any way changing the sort of behaviour that is regarded as a criminal offence. We are only addressing the question of whether you know the victim. The fact that if you know the victim, they are a friend of yours or your acquaintance or your brother or sister or something, means that technically they are not a member of the public and therefore you cannot be pinched. That is all we are changing. We are not changing anything else.

While I am on my feet, in answer to questions that the deputy leader asked earlier today, I am advised that in the last financial year, there were 27 section 19A offences prosecuted by the DPP but there were no offences in respect of boats. They were all motor vehicle offences. That does lead me to assume that, even now, the incidence of boats being involved in these things is relatively infrequent. You cannot catch them—too quick. I would not expect that frequency to change at all.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Can I thank all the members who have contributed to this conversation and can I emphasise again that I am very mindful of the members opposite who have made remarks about quite legitimate and natural—both recreational and other—activities that occur in the non-metropolitan area. Can I assure them that it is not and has never been my intention that those activities be in any way curtailed or circumscribed by this legislation. The only intention of this is that, in the event of those activities being so bad that they are culpably negligent and somebody is killed, the person who kills them should not be able to get off on the basis of, 'That fellow was my mate so isn't a member of the public.' That is all. With those few words I commend the third reading.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT