ACT Numbered Regulations - Explanatory Statements ACT Numbered Regulations - Explanatory Statements[Index] [Search] [Download] [Related Items] [Help]
ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2014 (NO 2) (NO 8 OF 2014)
2014
THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY FOR THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
ROAD TRANSPORT
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2014 (NO 2)
EXPLANATORY
STATEMENT
SL2014-8
Presented by
Simon Corbell
MLA
Attorney-General
ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION 2014 (NO 2)
Overview of the Regulation
The Road Transport
Legislation Amendment Regulation 2014 (No 2) (the amending regulation) makes
amendments to road transport legislation – primarily the Road Transport
(Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (the driver licensing regulation) - to
support the introduction of an effective ACT alcohol interlock
program.
The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (No 2)
made amendments to road transport legislation, including the introduction of
Part 3A of the driver licensing regulation to provide the framework for an
alcohol interlock program. Part 3A will commence on
17 June
2014.
Work undertaken within agencies which will implement the program
has identified a number of changes to the driver licensing regulation as
necessary or desirable to support the interlock program. A number of these
changes have been identified following examination of interstate interlock
programs and more detailed information being provided about the technical
features of interlocks.
The key changes made by the amending
regulation:
§ reduce, from two to one,
the number of positive breath samples an interlock driver may provide in the
last three months of their interlock period (the demonstration period),
provided that no breath sample in the demonstration period is for a blood
alcohol concentration of 0.02 grams or more of alcohol in 210L of
breath;
§ clarify that if an
interlock driver fails to provide a breath sample in accordance with the
requirements for random breath samples, this will constitute a program breach in
the demonstration period;
§ clarify
that a person can only nominate a vehicle to be fitted with an interlock if the
person is the registered operator of the vehicle or has the agreement of any
other registered operator of the vehicle;
§ restrict the requirement for approval of an
interlock device to compliance with the relevant Australian standard for such
devices;
§ remove provisions that
allow New South Wales (NSW) interlock providers to fit and maintain interlocks
for the ACT program without further approval from the Road Transport Authority
(RTA);
§ make a driver convicted or
found guilty of refusing a breath or blood alcohol screening test or analysis,
who is not a habitual offender, subject to the mandatory interlock licence
condition provisions;
§ amend the offences relating to
fitting interlocks without approval so that they do not apply to interlocks
fitted for private or commercial purposes;
§ remove offence provisions relating to interlock
installers or service providers providing interlock data and information about
removal of interlocks and complying with conditions of approval;
§ provide that a person who is subject to the
mandatory interlock licence provisions who has not been assessed by the court
alcohol and drug assessment service (CADAS), can be ordered by the Magistrates
Court to undergo such an assessment and that the court can order the
person’s driver licence be suspended pending the person complying with the
order;
§ enable a person with an
interlock condition on an interstate licence, who moves to the ACT, to be issued
with an ACT probationary licence with an interlock condition.
Human
rights implications
Most of these changes are fine tuning of the
practical operation of the interlock scheme which is already set out in Part 3A
of the driver licensing regulation. The human rights implications of the
provisions of the scheme were discussed in the Explanatory Statement for the
Road Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (No 2).
Some of the
changes made by this amending regulation modify offences in, or remove offences
from, the driver licensing regulation and, in doing so, reduce or remove the
potential human rights limitations of the relevant offence
provisions.
The two more substantial amendments which could be regarded
as extending limitations on human rights are the amendments relating
to:
• making a driver who is convicted or found guilty of an
offence of refusing a screening test or breath analysis, but who does not meet
the definition of ‘habitual offender’ liable to participate in the
mandatory interlock program; and
• giving the court the power to order
a person to undergo a CADAS assessment and to order the suspension of the
person’s driver licence pending compliance with the
order.
Inclusion of drivers who are convicted of
‘refusal’ offences within the mandatory scheme
Section
73T of the driver licensing regulation establishes which drink driving offenders
are subject to having a mandatory interlock condition placed on their
probationary licence following a period of licence disqualification. This
includes drivers who are high range (level 4 blood alcohol concentration - 1.5
grams or more of alcohol per 210L of breath) and repeat offenders for
alcohol-related disqualifying offences.
“Alcohol-related
disqualifying offence” is defined to include a range of drink driving
offences – exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol, driving
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, refusing to provide a
breath sample and refusing to provide a blood sample. As a result of recent
amendments to the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977,
introducing the offence of refusing to undertake a screening test, this offence
has also been included as an “alcohol-related disqualifying
offence”.
The concept of “alcohol-related disqualifying
offence” is used to cover offences as a result of an offender either
being tested and found to be driving with excessive alcohol in the
person’s body or refusing to be tested.
As it is important that a
driver is not able to avoid the consequences of drink driving by refusing to be
tested, the road transport legislation provides for those consequences to be
applied to drivers who refuse to be tested. For example, the driver licence
disqualification periods that apply where a person is convicted of refusing a
screening or breath analysis test are the disqualification periods that apply
for a level 4 offence (ie the highest BAC level offence).
Applying this
principle to the interlock scheme in the regulation, a driver should not be able
to avoid the requirement to participate in an interlock program by refusing to
provide a sample which will enable their BAC to be determined.
Other
interlock program jurisdictions also require drivers convicted of refusal
offences to enter a mandatory interlock program. The basis for this position is
that drivers should not gain an advantage (that is, avoiding mandatory interlock
requirements) by refusing to provide a sample that will indicate whether they
have committed a drink driving offence.
While the effect of this
amendment will be to, potentially, expand the number of drivers who are within
the scope of the mandatory interlock program, it is entirely consistent with the
principle that drivers should not be able to avoid the consequences of drink
driving by deliberately avoiding detection.
The Explanatory Statement
for the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (No 2) addressed
the rationale for the limitations to be applied to those drink drivers who will
be subject to the mandatory interlock program.
Power for court to
suspend a driver licence pending compliance with assessment order
The
power for the court to order that a person, to whom section 73T of the driver
licensing regulation applies, undergo a CADAS assessment is implied by existing
section 73U of the driving licensing regulation. This provides that the court
can only sentence the person once the court has considered a report prepared by
CADAS making any recommendations about treatment or a program that may be
appropriate for the person.
While it is anticipated that, in most cases,
defendants to whom section 73T applies will be engaged early to arrange an
assessment, it is possible that some defendants may delay or refuse to undergo
an assessment. This amending regulation, therefore, provides the court with an
express power to order the person to undergo the assessment.
As some
defendants may be motivated to delay the assessment, in order to delay
sentencing and the imposition of a disqualification period, the amendments also
provide that the court may order that a defendant’s driver licence be
suspended until the defendant has complied with the order.
To the extent
that the power to order suspension of a licence, pending compliance with an
order to undergo an assessment by CADAS, is a new provision potentially limiting
human rights, the following analysis against section 28 of the Human Rights
Act 2004 is provided.
The nature of the right being limited
The provision may engage the
right to freedom of movement.
The importance of the purpose of the limitation
The key purpose of
the limitation is to ensure that a defendant is not able to thwart the intended
operation of the mandatory interlock program – in particular the
requirement for high risk offenders to participate in appropriate therapeutic
programs or treatments to address their drinking and driving. The limitation is
intended to give the court the power to remove the possible incentive for a
defendant to refuse to comply with an order to have a CADAS assessment which
will enable the court to proceed to sentence the defendant. The limitation also
supports the efficient management of court business, by providing a court power
to remove the incentive for a defendant to delay sentencing.
The nature and extent of the limitation
The licence suspension ends
when the defendant complies with the court order to undergo an assessment. Once
CADAS has advised the court that the assessment has been undertaken the RTA will
be advised and lift the suspension on the defendant’s licence.
The
limitation is not extensive, and it is expected that it will only be used where
a defendant has not effectively engaged with CADAS prior to the sentencing
hearing. Defendants will be strongly encouraged to have an assessment well
before that time, to avoid a delay in sentencing by the court.
Whether
a licence suspension is ordered will be a matter for the court in the particular
circumstances.
The relationship between the limitation and its purpose
The
limitation is on access to a driver licence for a period of time to remove the
incentive to delay sentencing for a drink driving charge and the imposition of a
licence disqualification period.
Less restrictive means reasonably
available to achieve the purpose
Defendants will be encouraged to engage
early with CADAS to enable an assessment to be undertaken and a report provided
to the court to consider prior to sentencing. However, there is a need for the
court to have an effective power to require a defendant who has not engaged and,
indeed, may be strongly motivated to avoid engagement in order to delay the
imposition of a licence disqualification, to undergo an assessment. Where the
motivation for refusing to undergo the assessment is retention of access to a
driver licence the means to achieve the purpose is removal of that incentive by
suspension of the licence. It is not considered that there are any less
restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of the amendment.
For these reasons it is considered that the any limitation arising from
these amendments is reasonable and
proportionate.
CLAUSE
NOTES
Part 1 Preliminary
Clause 1 Name of
Regulation
This clause specifies the name of the Regulation, once
made, as the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation 2014 (No 2).
Clause 2 Commencement
This clause provides that the
formal amendments made by the Regulation will commence on the Regulation’s
notification day. The amendments in Parts 2, 3 and 4, amending the provisions
establishing the alcohol interlock scheme, will commence at the same time as the
parts of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (No 2),
establishing that scheme, commence.
Clause 3 Legislation
amended
This clause states that the Regulation will amend the Road
Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000, Road Transport (General)
Regulation 2000 and the Road Transport (Offences) Regulation 2005.
Part 2 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation
2000
Clause 4 When probationary licence must be
issued
Section 52 (2A) (b) (i)
Section 52 of the driver
licensing regulation sets out when a probationary licence must be issued by the
Road Transport Authority (RTA).
This clause amends section 52 (2A) (b)
(i) to the effect that section 52 applies, in addition to where a person is
eligible for a probationary licence under sections 73T or 73V of the driver
licensing regulation, where a person is eligible for a probationary licence with
an interlock condition under new section 73VA, inserted by clause 11 of the
Regulation.
Clause 5 Section 73A, application, div
3.13
Section 73A provides that Division 3.13, relating to alcohol
awareness courses, applies to particular persons, other than a person who is
subject to an order under section 73U (Court-ordered therapeutic
program).
This clause amends the reference to section 73U to section
73U(3), consequentially on the insertion of new section 73U(2A).
Clause 6 Definitions of approved interlock installer and approved
interlock service provider
Section 73S
This clause
amends the definitions of approved interlock installer and approved interlock
service provider to limit approved installers and providers to those approved
under the driver licensing regulation.
The deletion of references to
installers or providers approved under New South Wales interlock legislation
will ensure that only those installers or providers who meet ACT requirements
for approval will be approved for the purposes of the ACT interlock program.
This does not preclude installers or providers already approved in NSW or other
jurisdictions from applying to be approved to provide services for the ACT
program.
Clause 7 Definition of “fitted
interlock”
Section 73S
Section 73S defines terms used
in Part 3A of the driver licensing regulation relating to the ACT’s
alcohol ignition interlock scheme.
This clause substitutes the term
“nominated vehicle” for “motor vehicle” in the
definition of “fitted interlock”. This change is to the effect that
the provisions of Part 3A are only applicable in relation to an interlock
installed in a nominated vehicle under section 73X.
The provisions have
no application to interlocks that may be fitted in motor vehicles outside the
scheme established by Part 3A, eg interlocks installed in private vehicle
fleets.
Clause 8 New definition of interstate interlock
condition
Section 73S
This is a consequential amendment arising from insertion of new section 73VA
by clause 11 of the Regulation.
Clause 9 Mandatory interlock
condition
Section 73T (1) (a) (i)
Section 73T of the
driver licensing regulation sets out which drink driving offenders are subject
to having a mandatory interlock condition placed on their probationary licence
following a period of licence disqualification.
Section 73T(1)(a)(i)
provides that section 73T applies to a person who is convicted or found guilty
of a level 4 offence under section 19(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and
Drugs) Act 1977. A level 4 offence (the highest range under that Act)
involves a person having a blood alcohol concentration of 1.5 grams or more of
alcohol, per 100mL of blood or 210L of breath.
This clause amends
section 73T(1)(a)(i) to provide that, in addition to a person who is found
guilty or convicted of a level 4 BAC offence, a person convicted or found guilty
of a number of refusal offences, is also subject to the operation of section
73T. These refusal offences are: refusing to provide a breath sample; refusing
to undergo an alcohol screening test; and refusing a blood test related to
alcohol.
This amendment is to ensure that a driver is not able to avoid
the consequences of drink driving, including a requirement to participate in an
interlock program, by refusing to be enable their BAC to be
determined.
Clause 10 Court-ordered therapeutic program
New
section 73U (2A)
Section 73U provides that in relation to a
person to whom section 73T applies, before the person is sentenced, the court
must consider a report prepared by CADAS, including any recommendations about
whether any form of therapeutic treatment or program might assist the person.
In sentencing the person the court must consider the report and may order that
the person undergo treatment or a program recommended in the
report.
While it is anticipated that, in most cases, defendants to whom
section 73T applies will be engaged early to arrange an assessment, it is
possible that some defendants may delay or refuse to undergo an assessment. New
section 73U(2A) (a) provides the court with an express power to order the person
to undergo the assessment.
As some defendants may be motivated to delay
the assessment, in order to delay sentencing and the imposition of a
disqualification period, new section 73U(2A)(b) provides that the court may
order the RTA to suspend a defendant’s licence until the person has
complied with the court’s order to undergo an assessment. It will be a
matter for the court whether, in the circumstances, an order suspending a driver
licence is appropriate.
Clause 11 Interstate driver licences with
interlock condition
New section 73VA
New section
73VA provides for a person who is on an interstate licence with an interlock
condition to be eligible to apply for a probationary licence in the ACT. Such a
licence must be issued with an interlock condition.
A person seeking to
obtain any ACT driver licence must demonstrate they meet residency requirements
to be eligible for an ACT licence. In a cross-border region such as the ACT it
is particularly important to accommodate individuals moving inter-state within
an interlock scheme.
Clause 15 sets out amendments to section 73Y about
the Interlock Period, to address how this will be dealt with for people
transferring from interstate with an interlock condition.
Clause
12 Nomination of vehicle
Section 73X
This clause makes a
change reflecting drafting practice.
Clause 13 Nomination of
vehicle
New section 73X(2)(aa)
Section 73X provides for a
person whose licence is subject to an interlock condition under section 73W to
nominate one or more vehicles, which will be fitted with an interlock. The
nomination is provided to the RTA. Under section 73W the person can only drive
a nominated vehicle fitted with an interlock.
Clause 13 inserts new
section 73X(2)(aa) to make clear that when a person nominates a vehicle, unless
the person is the sole registered operator of the vehicle, the person must have
the written agreement of any other registered operators of the
vehicle.
Clause 14 Nomination of vehicle
New section
73X(3)
This clause is consequential on the amendment made by clause
13 and inserts new section 73X(3) referencing the definition of
“registered operator” in the Road Transport (Vehicle
Registration) Act 1999.
Clause 15 Interlock period
New
section 73Y (3A)
Section 73Y sets out the provisions to determine
the period that a person is required to have and interlock condition on their
probationary licence – “the interlock period”.
New
section 73Y(3A) sets out the interlock period for a person who has transferred
from an interstate licence with an interlock condition to an ACT probationary
licence with an interlock condition.
The interlock period will be the
later of:
(a) the day the interlock period would have ended if the person
had remained on the interstate licence subject to an interlock
condition;
(b) six months after the day the interstate interlock licence
condition was imposed; or
(c) three months after the day the ACT probationary
licence is issued.
The compliance demonstration requirements of the ACT interlock program will
also apply for the final three months of the interlock period. If these
requirements are not met, the interlock period will be extended until they are
met.
Clause 16 Interlock period
Section 73Y(4)
Clause 16 is consequential on the insertion of new section 73Y(3A).
Clause 17 Interlock period
Section 73Y(4)(b) and
example
This amendment made by this clause is consequential on the amendment to
section 73YA made by clause 20, in relation to actions which constitute a breach
during the interlock period.
Clause 18 Interlock
period
Section 73Y(5)
This clause amends the reference to
section 73U to section 73U(3), consequentially on the insertion of new section
73U(2A).
Clause 19 Interlock period
Section 73Y(6), new definition
of interlock period breach
This clause inserts a definition of the term “interlock period
breach” consequential on the amendments made by clause 20.
Clause
20 Interlock period breach
New section 73YA
In the last three months’ of a driver’s interlock period the
driver must demonstrate separation of drinking and driving, in order for the
interlock condition to be removed from the driver’s licence. Section
73Y(4) provides that the RTA must be satisfied that during that 3 month period
the person has not:
• driven a nominated vehicle for the person without
first providing a sample of breath;
• driven a nominated vehicle for
the person when the person knew or ought reasonably have known the interlock was
not operating properly or had been interfered with;
• committed more
than one interlock period breach; or
• failed to comply with the
interlock condition under section 73W (ie that the person only drive the
nominated vehicle for the person, fitted with an interlock).
Clause 20
inserts new section 73YA setting out what constitutes an interlock period
breach, being:
(a) providing a sample of breath containing a BAC of 0.02g
or more of alcohol in 210L of breath as registered by the
interlock;
(b) providing more than one sample of breath containing more than
0.0g but less than 0.02g of alcohol in 210L of breath as registered by the
interlock; or
(c) failing to provide a sample of breath when required by the
interlock.
The amendments in sections 73YA (1) (a) and (b), allow an
interlock condition to be removed from a driver licence even if the driver has
one low level BAC interlock reading within the final three months of the
interlock period. However a BAC reading of 0.02grams or more of alcohol in
210L of breath or two BAC readings of any amount over zero grams will constitute
an interlock period breach and the RTA will not remove the driver’s
interlock condition until the driver has demonstrated 3 months of driving
without a breach.
These changes, effectively, replace section 73Y(4)(b),
which is amended by clause 17. That section allowed up to two BAC readings, of
any level, in the final three months of the interlock period. There is not a
consistent approach, or identified best practice approach, in existing interlock
schemes, in relation what is required to demonstrate clean driving and how many
breaches are permitted. However, allowing removal of an interlock where a
driver has had two, potentially, high BAC readings in the last three months of
the interlock period is not consistent with the requirement to demonstrate
separation of drinking and driving.
The amendment in section 73YA(1)(c)
also makes it a breach for a driver to fail to supply a sample of breath when
required by the interlock. Once a driver has provided an alcohol free breath
sample and started their car, the interlock will require, at random intervals,
the provision of further samples of breath. This “rolling re-test”
feature of interlocks is intended to limit the scope for drivers to have another
person provide the initial clean breath sample, allowing the driver to proceed
to drive the vehicle while they have alcohol in their system. The interlock
will signal the driver by emitting an audible tone that they need to provide a
breath sample. The interlock is programmed to require the sample within 5
minutes of the signal. Drivers should pull over safely to provide a sample. If
the driver fails to provide a sample within the time required the interlock
device records this.
Failure to provide the sample within the time
required should be an interlock period breach as the driver failing to provide
the sample could indicate that the driver is attempting to avoid detection after
having consumed alcohol and driving.
New section 73YA(2) makes it clear
that the RTA must, when issuing a probationary licence with an interlock
condition, tell the person to whom the licence is issued what constitutes an
interlock period breach. Relevant documentation and publicly available
information will clearly set out details of what is required for a driver to
meet the clean driving requirements to exit the interlock scheme.
A
person will also have a right of review of a decision of the RTA in relation to
whether the RTA is satisfied that during the last three months’ of the
person’s interlock period the person has met the requirements to maintain
a clean driving record and exit the program.
Clause 21 When
interlock condition ends
Section 73Z(1)
The amendment made
by this clause reflects drafting practice.
Clause 22 Producing
interlock data record
Section 73ZA(2)
Section 73ZA(2)
requires an approved interlock installer or approved interlock service provider
to provide a person’s interlock data record to the RTA. It is an offence
for the installer or service provider to fail to comply with this
requirement.
This clause omits the section as the obligations of
interlock installers and service providers, in relation to the provision of
interlock driver data, will be addressed through the approval process and the
establishment of agreements with interlock suppliers under section
73ZZC.
Clause 23 Producing interlock data record
Section
73ZA(3)
This amendment is consequential on the amendment made by
clause 22.
Clause 24 When interlock exemption ends
Section
73ZH(3)(a)(i)
This clause amends the reference to section 73U to
section 73U(3), consequentially on the insertion of new section 73U(2A) by
clause 10.
Clause 25 Alcohol ignition interlock devices -
approval
Section 73ZL (2) and examples
Section 73ZL sets
out the requirements for a device to be approved by the RTA as an interlock
device for the purposes of the ACT interlock scheme.
This clause amends
the section to remove the requirement that the interlock has the technical
capability to identify the driver of the vehicle at a particular time. This
will mean that the only requirement for approval of an interlock is that the
device meets the relevant Australian standard for such devices.
The
requirement for devices to be capable of identifying the driver of a vehicle at
a particular time is removed as this capability may not be required by all
drivers subject to an interlock condition on their licence and may, therefore,
add to the cost of participation in the interlock program
unnecessarily.
A number of suppliers of interlock devices for other
Australian interlock programs are able to supply interlocks to which cameras are
connected, which enable identification of a driver at the time an incident is
recorded by the interlock (such as failure to start a vehicle due to a breath
sample containing alcohol). It is not a requirement of interstate interlock
programs that such features be included with interlocks used for those programs.
However, interlock program participants are able to choose to add a camera to
the equipment provided by their interlock supplier, at an additional
cost.
Such a device may be of value where there are expected to be
multiple users of a vehicle fitted with an interlock, to assist in establishing
who was driving the vehicle at the time an incident amounting to a program
breach is recorded on the interlock device.
Clause 26 Application for
approval as interlock installer or interlock service provider
Section
73ZM (1)(a)
As with the amendment made by clause 7, this clause
substitutes the term “nominated vehicle” for “motor
vehicle” as approvals under section 73ZM of installers and service
providers are only intended to apply in relation to interlocks fitted for the
purpose of the scheme established by Part 3A.
Clause 27 Failure to
comply with condition of approval
Section 73ZW
This
section, making it an offence for an approved interlock installer or interlock
service provider to fail to comply with a condition of approval, is
omitted.
It is intended that compliance of approved interlock installers
and interlock service providers will be addressed through conditions of
approval, the power to revoke approvals and the establishment of agreements with
interlock suppliers under section 73ZZC.
Clause 28 Installation or
removal of interlock without approval
Section 73ZX
(1)(a)
As with the amendment made by clause 7, this clause
substitutes the term “nominated vehicle” for “motor
vehicle” as the regulation of who may install or remove interlocks is only
intended to apply in relation to interlocks fitted for the purpose of the scheme
established by Part 3A.
Clause 29 Maintenance of inspection of
interlock without approval
Section 73ZY (1)(a)
This clause
inserts the term “fitted” before for “interlock” as the
regulation of who may inspect and maintain interlocks is only intended to apply
in relation to interlocks fitted for the purpose of the scheme established by
Part 3A.
Clause 30 Notification of removal of fitted
interlock
Section 73ZZ
This section, making it an offence
for an approved interlock installer to fail to notify the RTA about the removal
of a fitted interlock, is omitted.
It is intended that compliance of
approved interlock installers with notification requirements will be addressed
through conditions of approval, the power to revoke approvals and the
establishment of agreements with interlock suppliers under section
73ZZC.
Clause 31 Tampering or otherwise interfering with fitted
interlocks
Section 73ZZA
This clause makes an amendment
reflecting drafting practice.
Clause 32 Dictionary, definition of
alcohol-related disqualifying offence
New subparagraph
(a)(iia)
This clause amends the definition of “alcohol-related
disqualifying offence” by inserting a reference to the new offence of
refusing to undergo a screening test in section 22C of the Road Transport
(Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977. The new offence was inserted in that Act by
the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Amendment Act 2014.
The
amendment ensures that a conviction for this additional refusal offence will be
relevant to whether a person meets the definition of an habitual offender for
the purpose of section 73T of the driver licensing regulation.
Clause
33 Dictionary, new definition of interstate interlock condition
This
clause inserts a new definition for the term “interstate interlock
condition” consequential on the amendments made by clause
11.
Part 3 Road Transport (General) Regulation
2000
Clause 34 Schedule 1, part 1.4, items 4A and 28A, column
3
Schedule 1, part 1.4 of the Road Transport (General) Regulation
2000 provides for review of decisions made under the driver licensing
regulation.
This clause amends references to section 73U to section
73U(3), consequentially on the insertion of new section 73U(2A) by clause 10.
Clause 35 Schedule 1, part 1.4, item 28C, column 3
This
clause amends a reference to section 73U to section 73U(3), consequentially on
the insertion of new section 73U(2A) by clause 10.
Clause 36 Schedule
1, part 1.4, new item 28CA
This clause amends the Schedule to make a
decision by the RTA to refuse to end a person’s interlock period
reviewable (where the person was subject to an interstate interlock
condition).
Part 4 Road Transport (Offences) Regulation
2005
Clause 37 Schedule 1, part 1.6, items 24B and
24J
Schedule 1, part 1.6 of the Road Transport (Offences) Regulation
2005 sets out the penalties and demerit points that apply in relation to
offences under the driver licensing regulation.
This clause amends the
Schedule to remove the items relating to offences against sections 73ZA(2) and
73ZW, consequential on the omission of these sections by clauses 22 and
27.
Clause 38 Schedule 1, part 1.6, item 24L, column 3
This
clause makes an amendment consequential on the amendment made by clause
29.
Clause 39 Schedule 1, part 1.6, item 24M
This clause
amends the Schedule to remove the item relating to the offence against section
73ZZ, consequential on the omission of this section by clause
30.
Clause 40 Schedule 1, part 1.6, item 24N, column
3
This clause makes an amendment reflecting drafting
practice.