Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3888 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

figures, and clearly the message is stagnating and not getting through. So I make no apologies for wanting to support some legislation that one could argue is harsh, but I think we have an obligation to try to save lives.

I see Mr Hargreaves shaking his head there but, unlike him, Mr Rugendyke and I have some experience in dealing with drink-drivers. Mr Rugendyke spent a number of years in the police force, as did I. I will not be graphical, but it would be fair to say that we have covered all types of outcomes as a result of drink-drivers. It is not an experience that I enjoyed and I am sure it is not one that Mr Rugendyke has enjoyed.

I make no apologies for wanting to try to make life as miserable as possible for people that drink and drive. As Mr Smyth said, the impact on families of victims often is lifelong. We have an obligation as a legislature to send a clear message. And that is what we are doing. Unfortunately Mr Hargreaves has missed the point. We are trying to save lives. We are trying to send a clear message. Quite frankly, I feel a little bit embarrassed for the bloke because he has clearly lost the plot on this issue.

MR HARGREAVES (5.46): Like Mr Rugendyke, I am not one for letting things go through to the keeper. We heard that Constable Osborne over there has actually seen loads of effects of these things, and we have heard tales of the ugliness of the legs of the Minister for Urban Services as a result of these things.

We have had an inference from Mr Osborne that I have not had any experience in this sort of thing at all. Mr Osborne would not know what I have experience in; first, because he has not bothered to ask and, secondly, because he has not bothered to listen when we have talked about these matters before. Five years in charge of rehabilitation at Woden Valley Hospital gives members a fair idea of what happens in these sorts of things. So I do know what it is like. And, in fact, I have not missed the point.

Mr Osborne must have his elbow in his ear because he did not hear when I said that there are huge messages in this legislation which tell people we are not going to tolerate it, and we support all of those. The only thing we do not support in this is the denial of people to go to the courts and say, "Well, maybe things are a bit different". We have supported the sentencing.

Mr Osborne: How are you going to send a message? What do you want to do?

MR HARGREAVES: I am not going to engage in a debate with Mr Osborne across the chamber. I will treat his remarks with the contempt that they are due. We have a totally closed mind across the chamber, very much akin to an empty bucket. There is nothing much in either of them.

MR SPEAKER: I think we might just start debating this and leave the emotions out of it. I am getting tired of it.

MR HARGREAVES: Indeed. What we are saying is that the Bill is fine. We are saying that we do not want to start taking people's rights away for them to go to the court and just say, "Hey, there might be something a bit different here". We have courts to make those sorts of judgments. We are not saying that we do not want to chuck the book at

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .