Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Jeff Corbett 
 RTA arrogance 

RTA arrogance

What can we do about a bureaucracy that has developed such an elevated opinion of its role that it puts itself above our courts?

As many people will know, the RTA is one such bureaucracy.

The most blatant instances I've encountered of this disregard for justice or a fair go derive from its practice of effectively over-ruling a court's decision to dismiss a traffic booking.

The court may find that the booking was unfair or that special circumstances warrant leniency, in which case the magistrate will find the case proved but dismiss it under Section 10 of the Crimes Act. As part of that he'll dismiss the penalty.

BUT as a matter of course the RTA doesn't accept the court's ruling, and as what appears to be vindictiveness it refuses to let the demerit points go the way of the fine. The court let you off, it says, but we're taking your licence!

In a case reported in The Herald on Saturday, Newcastle Local Court magistrate James Swanson had this to say in dismissing a traffic case because of mitigating circumstances: "You can come to court and get justice, but you can't get justice with the RTA." Mr Swanson warned that the RTA would use the demerit points of the dismissed booking to disqualify the driver. NSW's Chief Magistrate has also attacked this RTA practice.

In my column today I write of two other cases, involving my son and a young woman, both new drivers who went to court a second time to defeat the RTA's bloody-mindedness.

But what can we do for justice, for a fair go, without going back to court?

We can't vote against the RTA but we can vote against the government that fails to rein in its excesses, that fails to protect us from a bureaucracy that puts itself above the referee.

Has the RTA's arrogance reached such a stage that we should retaliate on state election day?

Send to a Friend
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Incredible situation on the face of it. Sounds like something the Ombudsman might look into. Don't they review the implementation of legislation, investigate complaints against government departments etc?
Posted by Clare on 22/07/2008 11:35:41 AM
At all levels the RTA has put itself above the law and where convenient the law is changed to suit the RTA. With politicians such as Frank Sartor pushing through anti-natural-justice laws the RTA is allowed to continue its reign of terror. What a wonderful 'cash cow' the ordinary motorist is! If we all stopped driving for a week, the State Govt would go broke without its massive income stream from fines and excise. Bureaucrats, don't you just love them!
Posted by Syntaxed on 22/07/2008 11:37:37 AM
I have several gripes with the RTA and I believe they should be addressed by government. They include selling private information - that is, name and address - to private companies on request after supplying a rego number of a vehicle, where there is no criminal action involved. I object to the cancellation of my driver's licence because I contested a fine from the Electoral Commission over an alleged failure to vote at a state election. Try explaining to insurance companies or potential employers when asked "have you had your licence cancelled" that your driving record is OK. This is what happens when you "corporatise" elements of the public service.
Posted by Tony Emanuel on 22/07/2008 2:13:19 PM
Why doesn't the Police and Ambulance service have the financial excess of the RTA? Because the RTA is a business and has something to sell. In case you didn't know, the RTA has a massive advertising and disposable budget. It can actually make money for the Govt. Give the money to Police to enforce road rules, and Ambulance to clean up the leftover mess.
Posted by Bonkers on 23/07/2008 4:15:05 PM
I struggle to follow this case. There are 2 possibilities and maybe "the Hunter's most provocative columnist" can help me understand the situation. Was the charged unproven and the case dismissed? Then clearly the RTA should restore the points! Or were the charges proven and the fine dismissed? If so I can understand why the point loss would be validated. Is this a beat-up or is it abuse of the system? I need clarification.
Posted by have I got it right? on 27/07/2008 8:54:28 AM
Case proved but dismissed because the court accepted the defendant's explanation. The dismissals are by way of section 10 of the Crimes Act. The Court dismissed the case, without a conviction, and not just the penalties.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 28/07/2008 8:49:10 AM
As I see it "Have I got it right" - the RTA is still in their right to take points. Committing the crime demands some punishment, even if it is just points demerit. He should think himself fortunate....
Posted by Bonkers on 1/08/2008 4:42:23 PM
1

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Jeff Corbett
Bend the online ear of the Hunter's most provocative columnist.

5/09/2008 | THIS WEEK I turned 40. How does that explain the schoolgirl figure and youthful looks?
Combined
 
100 Years of Scouting