HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (DRIVING OFFENCES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2010.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:48): I understand that there are no other indicated speakers for this bill, so I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate and for their indications of support. The Hon. Ms Bressington has indicated to this chamber that she supports the bill on condition of her filed amendment. With reluctance, this government will not be opposing these amendments for reasons I will discuss later.

In debate, the Hon. Mr Ridgway questioned the interplay between the period of imprisonment for the basic offence and the duration of the loss of licence. I wish to clarify to the honourable members and this chamber that the licence disqualification for the offence commences only from the date of the offender's release from prison. This is pursuant to section 169B of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

I note the honourable member's general comments regarding the extension of the new offences to passengers, in particular his comment that, as drafted, police will be able to secure on-the-spot convictions when they turn up to the scene of a street racing event. The government is of the opinion that this is not an accurate characterisation of the intended operation of those provisions and it is important to clarify their true effect.

Under the bill, police will be able to charge, not convict, persons they believe to be participants in a street race or involved in preparations for a street race; that is, not convict them on the spot. The decision whether to convict an alleged offender is one for a court subsequently hearing those charges and is dependent on the prosecution providing the elements of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt in the normal way.

I note the honourable member's comments regarding the emergency worker defence provisions contained in the bill. I wish to convey this government's thanks for the constructive discussions held with the shadow minister and his staff to resolve the agreed final form of the relevant sections. As drafted, they will ensure that an appropriate level of protection is afforded to emergency workers acting in the execution of their duties.

I take this opportunity to answer the question on notice posed by the Hon. Mr Hood. In debate he asked whether a person charged with a street racing offence will face an automatic loss of licence. The short answer to the honourable member's question is no. The issue of whether or not to attach an automatic or instant loss of licence (ILOL) sanction to an alleged street racing offence was considered at length by this bill's working group. Ultimately, they considered that such sanctions are appropriate for Road Traffic Act 1961 offences which do not involve an element of judgment on the part of the investigating officer, such as drink or drug driving.

The government will not be pursuing ILOL at this time in relation to the new street racing offence, but the matter is under consideration as part of its road safety election commitments. Again, I thank honourable members for their constructive input received in respect of this bill and for their foreshadowed support of it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would just like some clarification from the minister in relation to an amendment—that I think I have on file—that broadened the definition. Instead of having operational policies and guidelines included with the term 'directions', I would like the minister to put on the record that the advice the government has received is that the definition of directions actually covers operational guidelines and procedures. The minister's office has been in contact with me to confirm an agreement with the opposition spokesman, Mr Mark Goldsworthy, on behalf of the Liberal Party that the amendment in my name to clause 10 will not be moved and is withdrawn.

As a result, the government's filed amendment on the same clause will not be moved and is withdrawn. The agreement follows advice from the Attorney-General's office and contact with the police that confirms that the bill as drafted provides appropriate coverage for the police in the anticipated circumstances. I think it is important that the minister places on the record her answer that, yes, what we were trying to achieve by the amendment has already been covered in the bill and we do not need the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is correct.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like a more direct confirmation and response to Mr Ridgway's concerns. Can the minister confirm that officers will not be able to avail themselves of this defence if, when they are acting, they are acting contrary to a direction of a superior; if they are acting contrary to policies of the police force; or if they are acting contrary to general orders or operational guidelines of the force.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that an emergency worker has to be acting in accordance with the directions of their employing authority. Accordingly, that would encompass obeying the directions of their superiors and acting in accordance with operational guidelines. I have been advised that 'directions' is not defined, but it would include directions emanating from superior officers, operational guidelines and the like.'

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Minister, general orders of the police?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 4, line 38 [clause 6, inserted section 19AD(2)(a)]—Delete 'is present in a motor vehicle whilst it is driven' and substitute: 'drives a motor vehicle'

As I said in my second reading speech, this will ensure that a passenger cannot just be presumed to be egging a driver on in a street race; there will be an onus of proof on police to prove that. Also, I indicate the support of this amendment from the Law Society and the Australian lawyers association.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Lawyers Alliance.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Lawyers Alliance. The main concern was about reversing the onus of proof also for passengers, and also indicating that there is another law that a passenger can be charged under already, which is section 267 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, if they refuse as a passenger to cooperate with the police.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This amendment limits the new offence of street racing to drivers of motor vehicles, whereas the provision of the bill would extend the offence to passengers. The government went to this year's election with a street racing policy that clearly stated that the new offence would extend to anyone who promotes, assists or is a passenger in a street race. Passengers were specifically targeted in recognition of the fact that street racing can involve participants other than the driver and that often actions of passengers initiate or encourage a street race to take place.

Separately, by broadening the scope of the basic street racing offence to include passengers present in the vehicle during the street race, SAPOL would be able to charge the vehicle's occupants in situations where the identity of the driver was unknown—for instance, where they exit the vehicle and take off before apprehension. Those advantages were alluded to by the Hon. Mr Ridgway in his comments in this place; however, the government notes the views of the Hon. Ms Bressington and the concerns expressed by some commentators in this provision in order to ensure that the other very important initiatives contained in this bill are not delayed. The government will not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment for the reasons that she outlined. We think that other laws are available to the police to charge passengers in vehicles and we think that this is a sensible amendment and are happy to support it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I briefly indicate that we will also be supporting it. I can imagine a situation where perhaps a girlfriend of the driver may be in the car asking him to slow down and he refuses to. She could find herself in hot water just by being a passenger, so we support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 5, lines 6 to 11 [clause 6, inserted section 19AD(4)]—Delete subsection (4)

I indicate that this amendment is consequential to the first one.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 11) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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