A Bill for Change

Maybe that cheque isn't quite as blank as Labor would have you believe.

In the lead-up to the election last year, Labor conceded defeat and started campaigning with the line "Don't give Barry O'Farrell a Blank Cheque".

The theory was, I expect, that people would be scared about what the Coalition would get up to if they won too convincingly.

As things eventuated (and as most people expected) the Coalition did of course win the election, and convincingly so - but did not win enough Upper House seats to have an outright majority there.

This of course means that to get legislation through the Upper House they need to bring either Labor or a minor party with them.

The presence of the Shooters and Fishers means that the task is a little easier than perhaps some might like - but nonetheless something is better than nothing.

We saw the Coalition having to give something away earlier this year when it came to getting their Power Sale Legislation through the Upper House. Of course what they had to give was a massively unpopular opportunity for hunting in our National Parks - but, as I said at the time, it was democracy at work.

Earlier this week, however, we saw a far more edifying example of this process.

Last year the Coalition introduced a real dog of a bill on graffiti.

I wrote at the time about why it was such an awful bill, at least in part. In short, there were there main changes to be made in the way that offenders could be dealt with.

The first was to require a court sentencing a person to community service for a graffiti offence to spend time cleaning up graffiti. This is sensible.

The second was to give the court various powers in relation a person's driver's licence if that person is convicted of a graffiti offence.

The powers included:

• Extending the time the person could spend on their L's or P's by up to 6 months
• Suspending a person's licence for up to 6 months, or
• Reducing the threshold number of points before a person can have their licence suspended

I wrote about why it was a dumb idea at the time.

The third change was to remove the power to issue a caution to young offenders. Again, why it was that this change was necessary, and why the additional burden this would place up the court was justified was never properly explained.

In any event, the bill (as expected) sailed through the Lower House. An amendment was moved by Paul Lynch (ALP) to allow police to issue a caution for a first offence, but this was easily defeated. The bill was promptly passed and sent to the Upper House in August 2011.

Here, the Coalition ran into some more trouble. First, Labor moved a amendment. It was explained Adam Searle (ALP):

The changes he suggested were as follows:

• To allow police the power to give a warning for a child where the offence was a first offence, and
• To remove the power over drivers licences.

These amendments were made with only the Coalition opposed, and the bill was passed (with the Greens opposing the bill in its entirety) and returned to the Lower House.

The very next day, the Lower House rejected the amendments. When the bill bounced back to the Upper House in mid-September, the Upper House took the unprecedented step of asking for a "Free Conference" - essentially a working group of 10 Upper House and 10 Lower House members to try and reach a mutually acceptable solution.

The motion for a Free Conference was passed by the Upper House with the Coalition and the Christian Democrats Opposing it.

There matters ground to a halt. O'Farrell pontificated about how the Coalition had made this promise but couldn't get the bill passed, and it appeared that that was were things would lie.

Then, earlier this week, completely out of the blue, the Lower House rejected the request for a Free Conference and sent the bill back to the Upper House.

When it arrived, the leader of the Shooter and Fishers moved an amendement. As best I am able to understand it, the amendment removed the power to extend the period of time a young person must spend on L's or P's, removed the power to suspend a licence, but retained the power to reduce the number of points a person must accumulate before their licence as suspended.

As David Shoebridge said when speaking on the amendment, it improves the act (he said "marginally", but I suppose that is a matter of perspective).

The bill as amended was passed and returned again to the Lower House, where it will no doubt promptly pass.

The deal was reported in the Daily Terror as below:

I stand by my opinion that the bill remains a pretty awful one. It is a vague attempt to do "something" without any evidence whatsoever that the "something" will achieve anything. It is another example of politicians engaging in back-of-an-envelope lawmaking.

But it is good to see a bill being improved (however marginally) through the convoluted and drawn out parliamentary process.

It is also interesting to see the Shooters using their position in the Upper House to do this - so many have written about how the Shooters are merely O'Farrell's lapdogs, but here they have forced him to abandon what was seen a key promise made to take action of graffiti.

It remains to be seen if this is the trend or the exception.

*(I'm a little unsure about some of the procedural details above as, in places, I had some not inconsiderable trouble understanding the Hansard transcript. If I've misunderstood something, please let me know in the comments or on twitter)*

Half-Measures

Just a short BlogPost today - it's been a big week for me and there hasn't been a huge amount going on that I consider blogworthy.

I spotted this tweet from the Premier's media guy late this week:

It's a great idea. It's such a good idea it is difficult to understand why it has taken so long to make it happen.

There has been a recurring discussion over the years about how to reward drivers who keep a clean record. One of the dumber suggestions I remember hearing was that the good drivers get rewarded by having their points limit increased. Exactly why a safe, responsible driver would benefit in any way from such an increase was never made clear.

A licence renewal is not cheap, and there is no doubt that people are going to notice the difference:

Moreover, cars and drivers licences seem to have a never ending list of costs - besides the day to day running, there are services, repairs, Green Slips, Pink Slips, car registration and heaven knows what else.

The licence renewal is often one of those fees we pay with some resentment, because there doesn't seem any good reason why we should be paying $150 for a new card with a dodgy photo on it. This dispension will make a lot of people feel very different about getting their licence renewed.

Often it seems that politicians get so distracted bickering over all manner of things that they never have time for good, sensible policy. And that is exactly what this is.

Spray-on Justice

Another day, another Coalition "Law and Order" announcement.


I've written previously about the push for mandatory gaol sentences for cop killers (and David Shoebridge MLC posted an excellent criticism of the policy here).


Today O'Farrell announced that there would be expanded, stricter penalties for graffiti vandals.

Photo from here

I have no problem with graffiti being taken seriously.  It is a vandalism, it is a serious matter, and I don't doubt the figures quoted in this Herald article ($100 million spent per year, $50 million of that by CityRail).


The offence carries gaol as a maximum penalty and, for repeat or very serious offenders, that is an appropriate penalty.


That said, graffiti is, for now, usually punished by an on-the-spot fine.  Repeat offenders can be brought before the court on Malicious Damage charges, and receive the appropriate criminal penalties.


Today it was announced that all offenders will now have to attend court to be sentenced.


I wouldn't have a problem with this if the courts were not already stretched to capacity.  Most local courts struggle to deal with the quantity of work they already face, so it is going to be a challenge if there are now to be a whole new tranches of alleged offenders to be dealt with.


Another gripe with the move is the fact that these "law and order" policies seem to fly in the face of the government's stated policy to direct young people away from the court system.


Shoebridge said today "Less than a month after the Attorney-General called for less young people in the justice system, Greg Smith has announced a measure which is going to force more young people before the courts." quoted here.


Before the election, the then shadow attorney General called for an end to the unedifying "law and order auction" that took place every election.  Given the move towards mandatory sentencing and now this "crack-down" on graffitti, it would appear that the only reason the auction was ended was that the Coalition knew they could win without it

Attorney General Greg Smith, photo from here

That's all a side-point, however, to the really baffling part of this move: according to the Tele, "the courts will have the power to suspend a driver's licence, extend the period they remain on their learners or provisional licence or limit the number of demerit points accrued."


This idea is pretty stupid, for a number of reasons.


First of all, i question whether has anyone got any reason to believe that this will reduce offending other than "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea"?


I doubt it will.  O'Farrell said today "We know that too many of those involved in graffiti are young boys, but we know that young boys enjoy their cars and drivers licences - that's why we think this is an effective policy."


It just seems like something that might work. Or it might not.  But whatever, let's just inflict it on the community and see what happens!


I don't know how many convicted graffiti artists actual have drivers licences, let alone how many are 17, how many actually have accumulated demerit points, or how many people will therefore lose their licence.


I suspect the Coalition government doesn't really know either, because no one has actually had a close look at the issue to work out whether it will work.


Further, does an act of graffiti make a person any less fit to hold a driver's licence?  Why don't we also ban them from the CBD, forbid them owning a mobile phone, force them to get a haircut, or make them say "I must not ruin other people's stuff" 100 times whilst standing on one leg? Why are we taking their licence off them?


None of the reports I have read have any information as to whether these licence consequences will be mandatory on conviction, or whether they will be part of a magistrate's discretion.


As someone who works in the criminal law and deals extensively with licence issues, I'm pretty sure this is going to a massive headache for everyone involved.


There are already a large number of offences that can result in a loss of licence, including:
- Drink Driving
- Dangerous Driving
- Driving Whilst Suspended/Disqualified/Cancelled
- Driving Unlicenced


Of course, people can also lose their licence for having accrued too many points.


The system is complex.  Penalties and disqualifications increase if an offence is a second offence in a 5 year period. Disqualifications can be concurrent or  consecutive.


People who commit 3 major offences in 5 years are automatically given a further 5 years off the road, but this can be quashed at a later date.


Depending what kind of licence you have, you can accumulate different numbers of demerit points before you lose your licence.


Now we are going to start changing the number of points people can get, start extending their time on their P's, or even start suspending licences. And all for what?  All because "we know that young boys enjoy their cars and drivers licences - that's why we think this is an effective policy."

This is not dissimilar from the SDRO having the power to suspend driver's licences for non-payment. Yes, it is a useful enforcement, but we shouldn't be going about taking away privileges everyone else has without good reason.


If you are a drink driver, or if you drive recklessly, if you speed or if you talk on your phone while driving, you deserve to lose your licence.


But to start taking people's licence away for reasons entirely unconnected to a person's driving - it's arbitrary, it's going to be administrative nightmare, and there is no evidence (at least that I have seen) that it will work.


So what's the point?