The Western Australian Government has introduced the Road Traffic Amendment (Disqualification Notices) Bill 2026.
The Bill is being presented as a road safety measure designed to keep dangerous drivers off the roads while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Many people will support that objective.
I do too.
Let me be clear from the outset.
I do not condone dangerous driving, reckless driving, excessive speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or any conduct that places other road users at risk. Those who endanger others should be held accountable for their actions.
This article is not about whether dangerous drivers should be held accountable. They should.
It is about when and how the State should be permitted to restrict a person’s rights before guilt has been established by a court.
The Driver’s Licence: Safety Tool or Compliance Tool?
Before examining the proposed amendments, it is worth asking a broader question:
What is the purpose of a driver’s licence?
Most people would assume that licensing exists to promote road safety by ensuring drivers meet minimum standards of competence and responsibility.
If that is the purpose, then it follows that licence suspensions should generally relate to unsafe driving behaviour.
Yet over time, the driver’s licence appears to have evolved into something more than a road safety mechanism.
In Western Australia, a person’s licence can be suspended through the Fines Enforcement Registry for failing to pay certain fines and infringements. This includes non-driving related offenses such as failure to pay dog registration, parking fines and council rates.
This raises an important question. What does failing to pay a debt have to do with safe driving?
Does a person’s ability to drive suddenly become dangerous because they have not paid a parking infringement?
Does their driving skill diminish because they owe money to the State?
The answer is no.
In these circumstances, licence suspension functions not as a road safety measure but as a coercive mechanism designed to compel compliance and recover revenue.
Whether one agrees with that approach or not, it demonstrates that the driver’s licence is no longer used exclusively as a tool for road safety. It has become a powerful instrument through which government can influence behaviour.
Against that backdrop, the Road Traffic Amendment (Disqualification Notices) Bill 2026 raises an even broader question.
If a licence can be suspended for failing to pay a fine, can it also be removed before a court has determined whether a person is guilty of an offence?
The Rise of Automated Enforcement
Modern traffic enforcement is no longer limited to police officers observing conduct on the road.
Today, an extensive network of cameras monitors Western Australian roads.
Speed cameras detect excessive speed.
Red-light cameras monitor intersections.
Seatbelt cameras identify whether occupants are properly restrained.
Mobile phone detection cameras identify drivers allegedly using handheld devices.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems record vehicle movements and link registration details to government databases.
Shopping centres, businesses, local governments, service stations, dashcams, CCTV systems, and even mobile phones contribute to an ever-expanding surveillance network.
Supporters argue that these technologies improve road safety, increase detection rates, and help identify dangerous drivers.
Those arguments are not without merit.
However, they also raise broader questions about privacy, proportionality, and the increasing reliance upon surveillance as a mechanism of governance.
Today, an alleged offence may be detected, recorded, processed, and enforced without any direct interaction between a Western Australian and a police officer.
Technology has transformed enforcement.
The question is whether it is also transforming the relationship between citizens and the State.
The Expansion of Pre-Trial Disqualification
The proposed Bill significantly expands police powers to issue disqualification notices before a matter is heard in court.
The amendments would allow police to immediately disqualify drivers for a broader range of offences, including:
- Dangerous driving offences.
- Reckless driving offences.
- Hit-and-run offences.
- Alcohol-related driving offences.
- Drug-related driving offences.
- Certain speeding offences.
- Failure to comply with testing requirements.
The Bill would also permit police to rely upon a wider range of evidence, including:
- Breath tests.
- Blood tests.
- Oral fluid tests.
- CCTV footage.
- Dashcam recordings.
- Mobile phone footage.
- Other forms of visually recorded evidence.
The duration of disqualification notices would also increase.
Rather than lasting two months, notices may continue for three months or until the accused person’s first court appearance if that occurs after the initial three-month period.
The court would also gain the power to extend these disqualifications even further while proceedings remain ongoing.
For many people, the practical consequences are significant.
A driver’s licence is often essential for employment, medical appointments, family responsibilities, and participation in everyday life.
Losing a licence can have serious consequences long before a matter is determined by a court.
The Presumption of Innocence
One of the foundational principles common law is the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle exists because accusations can be mistaken.
Evidence can be flawed.
Witnesses can be wrong.
Technology can malfunction.
Cases can collapse when properly examined.
The justice system was designed to test evidence before punishment is imposed. The concern raised by this Bill is whether that balance is beginning to shift. Supporters will argue that these measures are preventative, not punitive.
Critics may respond that if a person loses their licence, employment, income, and independence before their case is heard, the distinction becomes increasingly difficult to draw.
Random Testing or Blanket Testing?
We often hear the term “random breath testing.”
But is it really random, or has it become a form of blanket testing where every driver is treated as a potential offender regardless of whether there is any evidence of impairment, dangerous driving, or unlawful conduct?
Most people accept this as normal. Many support it. Yet it is worth pausing to ask why.
In most areas of life, government authorities require a reason before demanding information, conducting a search, or interfering with a person’s activities. On the road, however, the position appears reversed. A motorist can be stopped, questioned, tested, and delayed without any suspicion whatsoever.
The justification is road safety, and that justification is powerful and understandable. But it also raises a broader question. If the State can stop a Western Australian, compel them to provide a breath sample, require a drug test, and restrict their movement without any evidence of wrongdoing, where does the principle end and where does it begin?
Perhaps the power is entirely justified. Perhaps it saves lives. Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Western Australians are comfortable with the trade-off.
Yet there remains a question worth asking: Is random testing fundamentally about detecting impaired drivers, or has society become accustomed to the idea that freedom of movement is conditional upon submitting to inspection whenever the State requires it?
The issue is not whether impaired drivers should be removed from the roads. They should. The issue is whether powers introduced for legitimate purposes can gradually become normalised to the point where few people stop to ask what assumptions about freedom, consent, and government authority lie beneath them.
The Financial Cost to Western Australians
Roadside alcohol and drug testing is often presented as a public safety initiative, but it also comes with a significant financial cost. While exact figures are difficult to obtain, a reasonable estimate places the cost of these programs in Western Australia at around $30 million annually once equipment, consumables, police resources, laboratory analysis, maintenance, calibration, vehicles, and administration are taken into account. Those costs are ultimately borne by Western Australian taxpayers.
The obvious question is: where does the money go? Publicly identified suppliers include Alcolizer Technology, the Western Australian company supplying roadside breath testing equipment, and Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, the German manufacturer of the DrugTest 5000 roadside drug testing system. Public reports indicate that WA Police increased its roadside drug-testing fleet from approximately 5 units to around 20 units in 2014, although current numbers are not publicly disclosed. Dräger reported approximately €3.48 billion in global revenue and €233 million in operating profit in 2025. The exact value of contracts and profits derived from Western Australian testing programs is not publicly available, but when taxpayers are funding programs costing tens of millions of dollars each year, it is reasonable to ask who benefits financially and whether sufficient transparency exists around the commercial arrangements supporting these systems.
Judge Dredd: “I Am the Law”
As I was reading this Bill, I couldn’t help but hear Judge Dredd’s famous line echoing in the background: “I AM THE LAW.” Perhaps Judge Dredd was never meant to be an instruction manual. Yet as governments acquire greater powers to surveil, detect, penalise and restrict before a matter reaches trial, it is fair to ask where the line should be drawn. Public safety is important. So too is the principle that punishment should follow conviction, not the other way around.
Thankfully, Western Australia is not Mega-City One. We do not have judges roaming the streets handing out instant justice. But we do have an ever-expanding network of cameras identifying vehicles, databases linking registrations to owners, automated systems issuing penalties, and legislation that increasingly allows consequences to be imposed before a court has determined guilt. Perhaps this is entirely reasonable. Perhaps it is necessary. Or perhaps dystopias do not arrive with a bang, but with a series of well-intentioned “reasonable measures” introduced one at a time. Either way, it is a conversation worth having.
The Cost of Safety
Every society must decide how much freedom it is willing to surrender in exchange for safety.
Most Western Australians would agree that dangerous drivers should be detected, impaired drivers should be removed from the roads, and reasonable measures should be taken to protect the public.
The question is not whether safety matters.
The question is what price we are willing to pay for it.
Over time, the driver’s licence has evolved from a simple permission to drive into a powerful tool of enforcement. Roadside testing has evolved from targeted policing into large-scale blanket testing. Surveillance cameras now monitor roads, intersections, shopping centres, service stations, and public spaces. Automated systems identify vehicles, record movements, and increasingly contribute to enforcement decisions.
At the same time, private corporations supply the equipment, consumables, software, maintenance, and services that support these expanding systems. Taxpayers fund the infrastructure. Motorists submit to the testing. The State exercises the powers.
None of this proves wrongdoing. None of it means the system is failing.
But it does raise questions.
At what point does a safety measure become a surveillance measure?
At what point does prevention begin to resemble punishment?
At what point does the presumption of innocence give way to the presumption of suspicion?
And at what point do Western Australia stop asking whether the trade-offs remain justified?
Perhaps the current balance is exactly right.
Perhaps it is not. Either way, a free society depends upon those who are willing to ask questions about power, accountability, transparency, and the gradual expansion of government authority.
Because the true cost of safety is not measured only in dollars.
It is also measured in the freedoms we are prepared to give away in order to obtain it.
By Dawn Kelly, Founder of the Inner Compass – Guiding you to align with the highest expression of your true self.
Recent Comments