Is WA's Mobile Phone Enforcement Policy Still Fit for Purpose

A $500 Fine, 3 Demerit Points, and No Realistic Payment Option

Imagine receiving a first-time mobile phone infringement in Western Australia. The penalty is approximately $500 and 3 demerit points. For some people, that may be manageable. For many others, it is not.

Three demerit points represent a significant portion of the points available before licence suspension becomes a real possibility. For workers who rely on driving, whether they are tradespeople, healthcare workers, contractors, carers, or regional employees, losing a licence can have consequences far beyond the original offence.

Then there is the financial impact. A $500 fine may not sound substantial to policymakers or high-income earners, but for many Western Australians it represents a week's groceries, rent, mortgage repayments, utility bills, or school expenses.

What is particularly concerning is that drivers who genuinely cannot afford to pay immediately may have limited options. By the time enforcement costs and additional fees are added, the debt can grow significantly beyond the original infringement amount.

This raises an important policy question:

If road safety is the objective, why is there not a simple, accessible pathway for people experiencing financial hardship to enter a payment arrangement before additional costs are imposed?

A penalty should encourage compliance and safer behaviour. It should not unnecessarily escalate financial hardship.

Road safety and fairness should not be competing objectives.

The World Has Changed

Modern vehicles look very different from those on the road a decade ago.

Many new cars now feature large touchscreen interfaces used to control navigation, climate settings, entertainment systems, vehicle functions and communications. Drivers are routinely required to glance at screens, interact with menus, and process information presented digitally.

As vehicle technology evolves, it is reasonable to ask whether legislation is keeping pace with how people actually drive.

The issue is not whether distraction is dangerous. It clearly is.

The issue is whether current laws adequately distinguish between high-risk behaviours, such as texting, messaging, scrolling social media or watching videos and lower-risk interactions, such as viewing navigation information.

Public policy should reflect real-world risk, not simply the presence of a device.

The Question of Proportionality

The broader issue is whether the penalty itself remains proportionate to the conduct involved.

Consider two scenarios.

In the first, a driver is actively texting, browsing social media, or composing messages while operating a vehicle.

In the second, a driver briefly views navigation information on a mounted device while travelling on a regional highway.

Most people would agree these behaviours do not present the same level of risk. Yet many Western Australians would be surprised to learn that the penalties applied can be severe regardless of the distinction. That is why an evidence-based review is warranted.

The public deserves to understand not only the purpose of the law, but also the evidence supporting the severity of the penalties attached to it.