ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 11 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 3258..


Mr Corbell: On a point of order, the question asks for an expression of opinion and is not directly related to a matter of government policy for which Mr Stanhope is responsible. It should be ruled out of order.

Mr Mulcahy: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, Mr Stanhope has, on a number of occasions, cited matters of interest rates here and been critical of the commonwealth government in his capacity as Treasurer and Chief Minister. I am asking him to support that statement in the light of the media revelations.

MR SPEAKER: He is entitled to express a view about those things in the ordinary course of debate, Mr Mulcahy. The difficulty for you is the standing orders prohibit you from asking a member for an expression of opinion.

Mr Mulcahy: I have asked him for the basis of his claim, which he has made previously in this place in question time.

MR SPEAKER: I think you asked him for an opinion.

Mrs Dunne: Mr Speaker, the question is quite straightforward. It is: what is the basis of your claim? Mr Speaker, it is not actually asking for an opinion; it is asking for the information on which he supports that opinion.

MR SPEAKER: It is still an expression of opinion about the matters. The standing orders specifically rule out calling for an expression of an opinion.

Mr Mulcahy: I am not asking for an expression of opinion, Mr Speaker. I am asking Mr Stanhope to justify his statement, which he has made in this place, in light of the fact that a newspaper has now come to the view that that is an inaccurate statement. I am asking him to explain the basis for his claim. My words were, "If not, what is the basis for your claim?"I am not asking him to offer an opinion on economics.

MR SPEAKER: I think you are asking for an opinion on the matter.

Motor vehicles—theft

MR GENTLEMAN: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, a recent study by the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council has reported that 55 per cent of Canberrans expressed concern about being a victim of motor vehicle theft. Minister, can you inform the Assembly what measures the government is taking to tackle motor vehicle theft in the ACT?

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Gentleman for the question and for his interest in this very important issue. Studies by the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council have shown that vehicles manufactured in the 1980s and 1990s are six times more likely to be stolen than a vehicle manufactured since the year 2000. The key reason for this, through research, is that engine immobilisers remain the most effective way of securing a vehicle. Since the year 2000, engine immobilisers have become standard in all new vehicles. It is those older vehicles without engine immobilisers that remain the most vulnerable to motor vehicle theft.


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT