Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) BILL 2006

Bill presented and read a first time.

Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill is designed with the underlying philosophy that the law should punish the guilty and not the innocent. Unlike the government’s approach to road safety which sets out to throw a blanket over all drivers whether or not they are responsible and safe drivers, the CLP’s policy is to say to Territory drivers: if you are responsible and safe in what you do we will support you with reasonable freedom on the road. If, however, you are the sort of driver who likes to drive drunk and, in doing so, expose yourself and others to dangers, as well as regularly driving without paying the premium for personal injury protection, then the CLP is out to get you. The CLP has designed this legislation with such an approach in mind.

The legislation says that if you consistently demonstrate yourself to be the sort of person who cannot conduct him or herself sensibly and reasonably on the road, and conduct him or herself soberly on the road, then we will take away your vehicle. It is that simple.

I take members now through the bill. Clause 1 is the title of the bill. Clause 2 amends the Traffic Act. Clause 3 is definitional. Clause 4 provides for an amendment of section 19 of the act.

Clause 5 inserts new sections 19A, 19B and 19C. Section 19 provides the grounds for which a vehicle may be taken from a miscreant driver. This is the ‘second strike you are warned, and third strike you are out’ policy. In short, if you have driven drunk with a blood alcohol reading of 0.15 or higher three times in five years you will lose your car.

Proposed section 19(2) provides that the court must make an order and it will take away the offender’s car for a period of three months. If, astonishingly, the person gets into their car and goes for another spin, then proposed section 19(2)(d) will demand that the car be forfeited to the Northern Territory. The order to take a car away will be on top of and additional to any other penalty provided by law. Nevertheless, we are not ignorant of the fact that there may be other interested parties who have a right to a vehicle: the partner of a repeat drunk driver who relies heavily on the car; a rental car firm; or if the car was in someway being unlawfully used. Apart from the obvious, a public servant driving home drunk would be an example of that type of unlawful use. In all of those instances there is a capacity for the court to find grounds not to exercise this power.

The proposed section 19B(1) allows for interested parties to apply for the custody of the vehicle after the impounding period. The opposition is not ignorant of the fact that many vehicles on the road today are only partly owned by their drivers. Credit providers maintain an equitable interest in such property and it is not in the interests of the opposition or its desire to deprive people with an equitable claim of right to exert that right. Therefore, should a finance provider or any other person with an interest wish to exercise their interest in the impounded car, the legislation is designed to protect that interest as far as practicably possible.

Proposed subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) are procedural instruction. Proposed subsection (6) empowers a court to make or refuse an order. Proposed subsection (7) determines that it is in the purview of the court to determine that the vehicle be transferred to the applicant if the court deems that sufficient evidence exists. If the vehicle is being applied for by a finance company or the like, then I am sure that this House would expect that if the driver’s equitable interest was sufficiently large, then the property would be liquidated and the equity returned to the driver subsequent to the payment of all other costs such as impounding costs and the outstanding loan amount. Pursuit of this matter would be by way of civil debt and is of no interest to the criminal court or this parliament as to how those issues are accommodated.

The other approach available to the court is to liquidate the asset and to pay the finance company their interest. Should this occur the part of the forfeited amount could be offered to the financier of the loan and the rest of the proceeds folded into the Central Holding Authority.

Proposed section 19C is largely procedural. When no application is made in accordance with proposed section 19B, then this section deals with the method of disposal and which interested parties are to be compensated and in which order as well as any leftover money to be forwarded to the Central Holding Authority.

Clause 6 of the bill inserts new sections. Clause 7 of the bill introduces the proposed sections 33C, 33D and 33E.

For section 33C to make sense, attention has to first be given to section 33. That is the section that says that it is against the law to drive unregistered vehicles. The reason that this is important is because registration of vehicles means that they have to be inspected for safety, and secondly, a vehicle will not be registered unless the third party personal insurance fee is paid at the same time in case all safety checks fail to protect the people who are in the vehicle. To fail to maintain a safe vehicle and not insure against an accident in which any third party may be injured or killed is a monumental act of selfishness and stupidity, and laziness. The truth is that the majority of people in our community would do the right thing if there were no registration and insurance requirements, and if the tort of negligence was the only law dealing with vehicle safety and third party insurance most people would still take all reasonable steps to cover themselves. Many people do so with comprehensive insurance. Sadly, there are people who cannot be trusted, which is why there is a need for the present amendments before the House.

There is an even smaller minority who will continue to flout the law. In doing so, they pose a chronic risk to others, not only because their cars are unsafe, but because, as they drive about in their unsafe cars, they have no insurance when things go wrong. The question needs to be asked: should these people have the right to continue to use our roads when they so flagrantly continue to endanger themselves and others? The opposition says no. The proposed section 33 says that if a person drives an unregistered vehicle in a public place or on a public street, they will then be served with a notice. The notice will essentially demand that the person must within 60 days register their vehicle. If a person fails to register the vehicle in that 60 day period, the car will be forfeited.

So that our position is clearly understood, it is this: if you do not register your car and you use it on Territory roads, the CLP will take your car away from you. We will confiscate your vehicle.

Proposed section 33C(4) allows a person to apply to the Commissioner for Police for an extension of time. Proposed section 33C(5) provides for a discretion for the Commissioner to give a 30 day extension to get the vehicle registered. Proposed section 33C(6) says that the owner of the vehicle commits an offence in driving an unregistered if they fail to register the vehicle in question in the time permitted. Proposed section 33C(7) provides defences for the offence. Proposed section 33C(8) comes to the heart of the matter: if a person is found guilty of the offence, the court must order the vehicle be forfeited as well as impose a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.

Proposed section 33D again provides for the rights of other interested parties in the property, and I will not repeat what I said earlier in relation to the protection of those rights. The terms of the bill are straightforward enough. Proposed section 33E provides for circumstances of the disposal of the vehicle.

I have gone through the clauses of the bill in some detail to hammer home a couple of points. One is that this government may well be keen to sit back and sanction the desires of those people who choose not to register their vehicles. The opposition does not sanction such an approach. This government may well sanction drunk drivers driving on our roads repeatedly. The opposition does not sanction that approach. This is, as our previous policy position has outlined, a position …

Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition cannot allege that this government sanctions drunk drivers on the road. That is an untruth and she should withdraw it.

Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is much said in this House which has been given a very wide berth by the Deputy Chief Minister. This is not something that is out of order. He knows it is not out of order and I ask that I be permitted to continue my remarks in the circumstances.

Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to be careful in your wording in relation to this bill. Deputy Chief Minister, if you wish to, you may approach me to make a personal explanation in relation to this matter. Please continue.

Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I ask how can it not be the case that this government is soft on drunk drivers and people who register their vehicles when they received the same letter I received from a Northern Territory solicitor many months ago who attached to the letter various research, both domestic and international, about the confiscation of vehicles for repeat drink drivers and those people who refuse to register their vehicles? How can the Chief Minister and her band of unhappy little friends contest the assertion that this government is not interested in tackling these problems when the minister wrote back to that solicitor and, in essence, said: ‘Cheers, thanks a lot for your letter, but we are not even going to look at it’.? How can the Deputy Chief Minister hold the view he apparently does when there is all of this hoo-hah about road safety, and the spin that this government puts on the reasons for the road safety report, and the outcome, that is, the imposition of speed limits on Territory roads, when this government has refused to tackle the very issues that are predominant factors in causing fatalities on Territory roads?

You think that by doubling the fine for repeat drink drivers from $100 to $200 is enough? I think not, nor does the average Territorian. You think that people who repeatedly drink and drive …

Members interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please direct your comments through the Chair.

Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the government members, divided and unhappy though they are, all collectively think that drinking and driving is just fine and dandy because they refuse to do anything about it. They have been in five years and they have actually turned their attention to the issue, and what do they come up with: a brochure and an announcement there will be an imposition of 130 km/h on the open highways of the Northern Territory. What nonsense. It should not, and ought not be forgotten that, prior to the 2005 election, we know, and it received publicity, that the government, and the Chief Minister in particular, received some advice about imposing a speed limit. Did we hear anything then from the government members? No, we did not. Why? Because they did not have the courage of their convictions. Now they think they can sneak in this speed limit. They were hoping no one would notice, but I think they have been beaten on that one, and …

Members interjecting.

Ms CARNEY: … and you do not even tell the truth!

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!

Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows she should be directing her speech through you, instead of trying to incite members opposite. Let her keep on with her dribble, but let her direct it towards you.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to direct her comments through the Chair. Leader of the Opposition, banging on the desk is not very parliamentary as well.

Ms CARNEY: I think I may have …

Madam SPEAKER: Been very active in your speech, yes.

Ms CARNEY: It is an issue of great interest to Territorians. Many of them are somewhat perplexed by it, that is, that the government’s answer to all of the problems is to impose a speed limit on the Stuart Highway. That does not even address the very figures and facts that the government’s own task force received. What are the main causes of fatalities in the Northern Territory? Grog, drink driving and failure to wear seat belts. What are some other factors? Unregistered vehicles. I know that members opposite have the utmost contempt for the people of Alice Springs, which is regrettable, and that they remain very angry about that. Go to Alice Springs and you will see the sort of cars I am talking about - people who consistently fail to register their vehicles. They do so because the sanctions are so irrelevant; they just keep doing it because they cannot be bothered. They take the view: why should they register their vehicles?

Under the CLP’s proposal, if you refuse to register your vehicle, and many of them are notoriously unsafe, the CLP will take away that vehicle. I am staggered beyond description that members opposite have difficulty with such a proposition. Similarly, in relation to drink driving, and I know it irks the Deputy Chief Minister, this government takes the view that doubling the fine from $100 to $200 for drinking and driving will fix the problem. Well, it will not.

This government is so busy fighting amongst themselves about who is going to be leader, it falls to the opposition to cut through and provide some answers. The answers really are straightforward. Yet, this is an arrogant, lazy government, the hallmark of which is its own infighting and egocentric behaviour by the members for Fannie Bay and Wanguri – they have not even stopped to have – yes, I cannot say that. They have not even stopped to look at the policies put forward by the CLP.

If I am wrong in that regard, if they have actually read the documents – and, of course, we saw the biggest bill in the Northern Territory’s history come before the parliament yesterday, and it did not appear to anyone that the Attorney-General actually read that bill. However, if it is the case that government members have read the material we have put out and which has been out for some months, then the question has to be asked: why will these people not do the right thing and actually do what they say they do, that is, be tough on crime? Why do they not actually follow through with the sentiments of the Chief Minister – wanting to save lives, wanting to get good outcomes for our fellow Territorians? If she was fair dinkum about this matter, she would instruct her little comrades on the other side to agree to this and other bills and packages put forward by the CLP. Perhaps she will not do so because she is so distracted by the leadership turmoil and infighting which is plaguing her government.

I will digress, if I may, briefly. There has, of course, been a great deal of media attention on this government and they deserve every bit of it because they are a divided and fractured government. Everybody knows that such a government will self-destruct. They dropped the ball on the way through and they are not doing their core function, which is looking after and protecting the needs and aspirations of their fellow Territorians.

Much has been said and written so far about the leak. I heard an interesting story the other day. I heard that it was the member for Casuarina or his office - so I was informed. A tipster said that there was some media material on the member for Wanguri; there was a suggestion that he leaked it. There was a suggestion, I think, that the member for Millner leaked it, he having had form when it came to his now famous memo. However, the betting money is on the member for Casuarina or his staff. I am not sure. I know that the Chief Minister was very angry and, presumably, she did what ever anyone would do. She probably called everyone into her office and said: ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. It was someone on the other side and the best money is on the member for Casuarina …

Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is fond of reminding everyone that she is a lawyer and we are not, and how much she knows about the law. She might take into account that the second reading of a bill into parliament actually plays a quite important role in the interpretation of the bill in the courts at a future time. If there is a question around clarity or ambiguity of a certain clause, the courts may, in fact, go back to the second reading to try to determine the intent of parliament from the second reading.

It would be impossible for any court to dive into this mess – this absolute tirade of nonsense - from the Leader of the Opposition to try to determine what, in fact, the bill is about. If she wants to do her bill any justice in this place, she should drop the arrogance and the condescension of all those around her. The contempt she holds, not only for her own colleagues, but for …

Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, is this a point or order? Or is this a speech? You can have an opportunity at a later time.

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Mr STIRLING: … all Territorians. Then get back to the substance of the bill which, if it was ever law, the courts might want to rely on the second reading.

Madam SPEAKER: While there is no point of order, Leader of the Opposition, I say to you while there is a level of latitude in all speeches, you do need to speak more closely to the bill.

Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will undertake to do so. I am surprised that the Deputy Chief Minister is like his Chief Minister - has his eye off the ball and invited me by implication to go on for as long as I did.

The comments I make are, nevertheless, specific and germane in this respect. It shows - and I will be brief – that the government has taken its eye off the ball because they are divided, which is why they refuse to look at sensible policy alternatives. They are operating in a policy vacuum because of their division. The division is, not that I understand Labor politics, that there is the left and the right, the centre, the centre left, the middle right, I do not get it. However, they are so divided that they cannot even collectively as a group sit down and say: ‘Is this a good policy, is this a good idea, would this assist our fellow Territorians? We have a job to do, let us do it’.

I urge this unhappy and divided government to do the decent thing with this legislation. I know what the outcome will be: they refuse to accept any proposal from anyone because of their sheer and indescribably high arrogance; they refuse to accept a proposal from anyone unless it is one of their team although they increasingly do not even trust each other. I do not expect much legislation to come on to the floor of the parliament in the next two years, because I am not even sure they will be able to agree between themselves.

In any event, I commend this fabulous bill to members opposite because Territorians will know they have a point of difference, they will have thousands of points of difference at the next election.

In relation to road safety, and I know I have another bill to talk about shortly, the CLP will overturn the speed limits on Territory highways. The Labor party will not. Further there is a concern that the speed limit will be reduced over time. That is outrageous.

The CLP takes the view that if you drink and drive repeatedly, your car should be taken away from you. The CLP has the view that if you are a selfish, ignorant fool and you refuse to register your vehicle, we will have the strength, the intestinal fortitude, to take that car away from you.

These are just some of the array of differences that Territorians will see at the next election. We have two or so years until the next election and the government has plenty of time to change its view, take our policy. We have seen it on a range of issues. We saw it in the last term. The CLP would come in here, propose some bills, you would all talk us down and say no, no, no that is stupid, and then somewhat miraculously in a matter of months we would see a very similar bill come back before the parliament. We would look at it and we would say: ‘That was our bill’, but your spin doctors upstairs, your $8m to $10m spin doctors in salaries alone on the fifth floor of Parliament House, they earn every cent of it because they ensure that this government’s spin is pretty much swallowed and is a bit more convincing than its substance of which there is very little.

Madam Speaker, I could keep talking all day about this but there is much more work to do. Given that the government is in crisis, paralysis, because they are not getting on well it will fall to the opposition to set the agenda, legislative and otherwise. I commend the bill to the House for obvious reasons.

Debate adjourned.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]