The Sanctity of The Scheme

I’m very keen to make sure that – [contra] the onus of proof – we have the sanctity of the scheme absolutely protected in the interest of everybody.”

– NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance told Ray Hadley today that when the Upper House reviews the Road Transport Amendment (Mobile Phone Detection) Bill 2019, he hopes it accepts the bill’s presumption “that an object held by or resting on a driver in a photograph taken by an approved camera is a mobile phone for the purposes of a mobile phone use offence, unless the driver satisfies a court that the object was not a mobile phone.”

This entry was posted in Oppressive government, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Sanctity of The Scheme

  1. Infidel Tiger King

    Soon they will be able to shoot you if they think the ice cream your holding was the same size as a gun.

  2. Leigh Lowe

    Revenue is falling.
    Debt is rising.

  3. a reader

    When the Great Purge of NSW Parliamentarians comes soon, I think Constance is definitely on the list. Along with Health Hazzard, the Chief Commisar, Two-Homes Harwin, Mitchell, Do as I say Elliot, Matt Green oops Kean and probably more I can’t think of right now.

    Sadly that collection of useless pillocks undermines the usually sensible work of Perottet and Dominello.

  4. NoFixedAddress

    In Australia there used to be a reasonable connection between the cities and the bush.

    But the best way of keeping your sheep herded and controlled is to give primacy to cities at the expense of the bush.

    Don’t be a wanker @a reader

    Who will “purge” whom?

  5. a reader

    The electors of NSW one would hope. I can’t see any government going full term after this debacle

  6. NoFixedAddress

    the sanctity of the scheme absolutely protected in the interest of everybody

    So when Australian Public Service Governments ™ take absolute control of food production and distribution we will all be so relieved.

  7. a reader

    If QLD could give such utter destruction to Anna Blight’s mob, there’s no reason NSW couldn’t get rid of its dead wood too

  8. NoFixedAddress

    @a reader

    welcome to your betters running your life.

  9. NoFixedAddress

    If QLD could give such utter destruction to Anna Blight’s mob

    And I laughed and laughed and laughed

  10. nb

    Wow. Wow. Wow. You mean that ‘mobile phone detection technology’ is actually object detection technology, the object becoming a mobile phone by fiat? Unbelievable. We are living in a faker and faker world. Where did reality and reason go? These people want respect?

  11. The Sheriff

    This is a disgusting proposal and the NSW Liberal members should be demanding Constance’s sacking and expulsion from the party.

  12. a happy little debunker

    Presumed guilty, until proven innocent – under the long standing legal principal of ‘he who denied it, supplied it’.

    Just another shit-show.

  13. Go to court and prove your innocence COZ YOU”RE ALL GUILTY BASTARDS IF WE SAY YOU”RE GUILTY BASTARDS. Who’cha think you are?

  14. I see an opportunity.
    A pad of shopping list forms in the size and shape of a mobile phone.
    Cost just $9.99. When served with an infringement just wack out the pad of shopping lists from the glove box and say ? ’twas these your worship.

    Magistrates hate coppers anyway, you’ll get off.

  15. John

    So, they’ve devised a scheme where you have to go to court to prove your innocence?

  16. It looks like all the states are taking their own path towards totalitarianism. In NSW, everyone is now guilty of law breaking until proven innocent. In Vic, everyone is guilty of transmitting viruses.

  17. Herodotus

    What if you’re handing the phone to your spouse so they can answer it?

  18. flyingduk

    Why would you be surprised? Mass enforcement Traffic law usually includes a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. Worse still, its often written in a form whereby even proving you didnt commit the offence is not a defence (because the offence is defined, for example, as being the registered owner of the vehicle detected in the commission of the offence, not the perpetrator) Its much too hard for the police to actually fight crime, its all about ‘traffic taxation’ of the average motorist.

  19. Mark M

    Off topic, but of interest?

    Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Reich, and other economists sign a completely insane letter tying alleged “deep-rooted racism” to imaginary CO2-induced “climate breakdown”.

    100 economists–including some of the most famous on earth–call for dismantling the carbon economy as a crucial step towards rebuilding the planet.
    Investing in oil and gas is ‘fundamentally incompatible with a stable future.’

  20. HT

    #3535974, posted on August 5, 2020 at 6:57 am
    What if you’re handing the phone to your spouse so they can answer it?

    That’s already illegal.

  21. Slim Cognito

    So, they’ve devised a scheme where you have to go to court to prove your innocence?

    Has been the case for a while in some parts of the country. If you get a speeding fine in the mail and don’t elect to take time out of your life to contest it, you are deemed guilty. No need for their “proof” to be tested. They are just extending this gradually until the presumption of innocence no longer exists.

  22. duncanm

    On this, he’s an obvious pillock on this issue.

    But don’t throw out the baby &etc. From that link:

    After a horror 2019-20 bushfire season, the Bega MP is pushing for reforms to clear land and reduce fire fuel loads.

    Mr Constance said landowners must be given the power to clear fire fuel off their own properties without facing massive fines.

  23. thefrollickingmole

    Australian police action, mobile phone unit, 2020 colorized and animated.

  24. Andre

    No different to being fined for speeding after a cop uses a hand held radar device. After stopping you they show you a speed reading on the radar gun and you are expected to be sure that it was your car. Unlike a fixed camera radar there is no picture to show what car was travelling at what speed but the motorist has to accept their word and pay up or go to court where it is your word against the cop giving evidence and guess who wins?

  25. sfw

    The problem is ‘strict liability’offences. It doesn’t matter if what you did was safe, unsafe or anything, it’s that fact that you did. Unfortunately many more offences are deemed to be strict liability each year, unless you front up to a magistrate you’re gone. Even magistrates rarely look at if what you did was safe or not, they just back the police. We need to get rid of or minimise all offences that have no actual victim.

  26. Damon

    How long before it’s an offence to change the disc in a CD player?

  27. Kneel

    “How long before it’s an offence to change the disc in a CD player?”

    CD’s? Nah, I have over 1300 MP3’s stuffed into my Android car radio, never any need to change CD’s – it doesn’t even play CDs! Could fit in just as much again if I wanted to, but it’s already about 25 hours of continuous play, so that seems like enough. Works from the standard steering wheel controls too. BT phone and satnav also. Just over $100 from China – with a reversing camera AND a dashcam included (I did have to buy an SD card for the dashcam though). Easy to fit – straight in to existing double DIN hole. Did have to buy a vehicle specific surround for it, all of $30 (retail!) for mine.

  28. Squirrel

    +1 for sfw’s comment at 9.25am – if only the politicians were as keen to put strict liability obligations on themselves and their officials as they are on the public.

Comments are closed.