13 August 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I rise to speak on the Police Offences Amendment Bill 2025, and I'd like to put on the record I did appreciate the briefings from the department where we walked through the bill. However, some of that information may need to be spoken in this place so we get the gist of what was happening. The honourable Leader spoke about the bill saying 10 units and you gave a figure. That figure is now outdated, it's now 213, according to the Justice portal, per unit. I'm just wondering for Hansard's purpose, do you reflect that in your closing statements because it's actually not correct at the moment? I will just leave that with you to figure out how that works.


Ms Rattray - Thank you, honourable member, and I will leave it with somebody else.

Mr GAFFNEY - I can appreciate the intention of the government in introducing the new offence of road rage, especially so as an attempt to remedy the issues of aggressive or irrational driving behaviours by people in charge of a motor vehicle and in a broader sense its efforts to try to improve and bolster the Tasmanian criminal justice system with other elements in the bill.

While I'm generally in support of the bill, I do have some concerns, a number of which have already been discussed in the other place. As such, I will endeavour to keep my contribution brief and to the point.

I have been observing the debate on this legislation. I also note that several minor targeted amendments could address at least some of the concerns that I have with the purpose and operation of the bill as currently drafted.

From the outset, I would like to recognise the issues that this legislation is trying to address. Road rage and overt aggression that leads to dangerous driving, intimidation and assault are a growing presence on our roads. I am certain that many of us have had experiences with other drivers being unsafe, irrational and irresponsible. There is no doubt that social media has only raised community awareness of such behaviours, along with the desire to see something done about it. The question then becomes how to go about it in a way that is fair and appropriate without adding further complications.

As noted in the other place, a vehicle has the real potential to be used as a dangerous weapon. It's a 2- to 3-tonne metal object that can move at significant pace, and we only have to witness the increasing number of supersized utes with darkened windows to get a sense of the level of intimidation that can come from large vehicles, both overt and subliminal.

Ms Rattray - So, you've had a Ram come towards you as well?

Mr GAFFNEY - No.

As such, it is vitally important that those in control of all vehicles are conscious of their potential for harm and operate them in a defensive and conciliatory manner. We must also ensure that the regulatory framework in place recognises the safety concerns and imbalance that comes from those good, responsible drivers and those who choose to vent their frustration through the red mist of pure aggression and intimidation. Dare I say, sometimes they seem to enjoy these behaviours a little too much.

We have also those that might be considered passive aggressive behaviours such as tailgating to push somebody along, the overtaking lane accelerator to defend their place, and last-minute overtaking merging traffic, a move that causes a dangerous multi-car concertina of rapidly braking traffic as they seek to avoid colliding with those individuals who must be in front of the traffic at all times, no matter the consequences.

Mr President, I must ask how the new definition of 'road rage' in the bill will apply to what may be seen as a part of everyday driving experience in Tasmania.

The three passive aggressive behaviours I described may well fit the definition of road rage in terms of, and I quote:

A risk or danger to a person that results in alarm, distress, apprehension or fear in another person.

If the apparent victim has a response which consists of threatening, abusive, obscene, offensive, profane or insulting words, gestures or behaviours, they too may be equally liable for conviction.

I assume the first cases that appear in the courts will establish the precedent that will define the future of such cases and the role of a dash cam that records the verbal utterances of both sides. Of course, no matter how well intended a legislative proposal is, the devil is always in the detail.

As has been championed by the Law Society of Tasmania and across various other submissions that opposed this legislation in part or in full, there are several concerns with this bill. Indeed, as was noted when it was debated in the other place, it is a shame that this bill did not receive a level of scrutiny like other more notorious legislative proposals.

Moving to my first concern, in an almost given for this government, it appears that some aspects of this legislation were simply not put out for community input and consultation in an appropriate manner. Other parts of the legislation may have been sent for community input, but from that consultation process little appears to have changed in the government's selective approach to such things.

Of course, this legislation has been touted as an anti-road-rage and hooning amendment bill, and while it does change the law to that end, the bill has almost an omnibus flavour. It adds a related offence and varies other offences that are prima facie unrelated. The bill also gives further power to police by flipping the onus of judicial oversight, furthering an ongoing trend in Tasmania, expands the umbrella of what some mobile phone and computer related offences relate to, some reasonable evidentiary matters relating to a property, witness proceedings and averments.

As such, it is quite difficult to expect adequate consultation to be made. To outline the order of events, the government put forward that it would be making an anti-hooning bill and that same bill has seemingly snuck in a variety of other fixes it would like to have for unrelated matters. With that in mind it's difficult to expect underfunded and time-poor organisations to be able to spend their time trawling the minutiae of the legislation for poor outcomes.

I am concerned that this leaves behind proper process for experience's sake. If the government could clarify as to how it views the role of these changes and the use of a police officer's reasonable belief in addressing or working together with existing processes to address the various forms of road rage and hooning. It does suggest a degree of subjective and selective judgment that may be problematic in securing a conviction.

As another example, we can assume that a video taken on a mobile phone and posted to social media will link in with a computer-related offence as per the bill. Or is it otherwise to ensure experience without harming participation and community interests? I would appreciate an understanding of how that would work.

Of course, I note that it was pleasing to see the Premier finally take on board the community feedback regarding the phase 2 draft Primary Produce Safety (Horticultural Produce) Regulations of 2026. Of course, much of what I saw of by way of community response to that decision was positive, overwhelmingly supportive of more consultation, but why was it even to progress as an obvious point of community aggravation that instantly fails the pub test of common sense?

I'm also concerned that this bill involves creating almost redundant criminal laws for the sake of a spectacle. It is already a crime to drive dangerously, recklessly, negligently, without due care and attention, or to cause harm to another person. These crimes broadly encompass the same activities that meet the proper definition of road rage.

One might argue that the proposed road rage crime is extending the law to the mental anguish or distress caused to the victim. However, would it not be more expedient to clarify that in law which gives force to the existing crime of dangerous driving rather than creating overlapping crimes that add vagueness and uncertainty?

Of course, one might argue it is designed to cover intentional threats, but the Police Offences Act also expressly includes threats within related crimes where necessary. If anything, this could would be deviating from the norm.


I note that a separate crime appears to allow for greater clarity in sentencing, but I also note that the legislation will increase maximum sentences for various related and unrelated offences, reducing clarity. I am concerned that blankly increasing maximum penalties will have a flow-on effect to sentencing across the board, instead of encouraging or permitting more flexibility and targeted appropriate sentencing.

The Tasmania Sentencing Advisory Council's 2020 guide to sentencing in Tasmania notes a list of sentencing factors that a court is required to consider in its sentence. The first in the list is:

the maximum penalty for the offence - set in legislation, this is the maximum term of imprisonment and/or a maximum fine amount that a court can impose for a particular type of offence.

I would be interested to hear from the government on the impact of this bill on the possibly inflationary influence of sentencing in general terms, and how the government specifically envisages addressing the impact of the proposed criminal offence of road rage.

I note that I'm also concerned with the increase in police powers, and the shift to remove the need for a police officer to personally observe a prescribed offence and needing only reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed a prescribed traffic offence before the officer may confiscate a vehicle and is required to make a forfeiture order. Whilst I can fully respect the growing use of dash-cam footage and CCTV as notionally objective evidence of an offence, it can still leave doubt if the offender cannot be clearly identified beyond reasonable doubt. This is the conundrum. If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds, does that mean that they must clearly identify that that person driving the car was actually driving the car? The use of direct witness evidence can also be problematic, other than as an opportunity to further investigate a potential offence.

I am aware that the government has spoken about this legislative proposal at length in the other place, on the matter of vehicle seizures and many of the concerns I have raised. Nonetheless, I would appreciate the response from the Leader of the Government to the queries and concerns I have raised regarding the legislation. Thank you.