Alan Webster Neill
I notice that there is no provision under section 1 for the cancellation of a man's driving licence. It is provided in section 2 that if he is culpably negligent and kills a man he can be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, which perhaps means a day, and to have his licence cancelled for a longer or shorter period. That is all right, but apparently there is a discrepancy between the two sections. A man who kills another wantonly while not under the influence of drink is only liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and perhaps not more than a day, but a man who drives while under the influence: of alcohol and is caught doing it, but hurts nobody, must get a penalty of not Less than two months. I suggest that that term dhould be cut down to thirty days and that his licence should be cancelled for a period. Cancellation of the licence would be for wealthy people
Criminal Code Amendment
a more serious penalty than a fine. I notice that under section 1 it is proposed to do a>way with the opportunity of paying a fine, but I think that when no accident happens to punish a man whose one and perhaps first offence is that of being, not drunk, but under the influence of drink, with a penalty not exceeding six months and not less than two months is rather steep. I think the effect which is sought could be secured if he were imprisoned for thirty days or even less because no decent man likes to go to gaol even for ten days, and in addition take away his licence for six months.
The last two sections of the bill I do not think are necessary; to me they seem undesirable. As regards section 1, which appears to reflect the observations of both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Church), I should like to see enacted some provision of this kind.