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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3978 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

disagree with that, but I think that the method being used to do so is extraordinarily over the top.

I must say that I think that it would be better to adjourn this matter now and come back after we have had a think about it. Mr Rugendyke is probably determined to push on with it and he probably has the numbers. I have had the numbers before and pushed on with things, so I understand that. But I think that there are better ways of dealing with it without creating the impression that we are taking issues like this to that degree of seriousness.

This provision brings into question how seriously we take a whole range of things in the motor transport legislation. Last night we dealt broadly with the motor transport legislation, including drink-driving. We do not impound people's vehicles for that. I have to say that it would seem to me that we have greater reason for impounding somebody's vehicle over serious drink-driving offences. If somebody is guilty repeatedly of drink driving, then, using this logic, you would have to say that that is a better reason for adopting this process.

At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, the only area where we actually seize assets - and we are talking about the seizure of assets - is for very serious drug-dealing offences. We are talking about the proceeds from drug dealing on a huge scale. Somebody may correct me, but my recollection is that that is the only occasion on which we seize assets. There is a big difference between that and allowing the police to have the power to handle a situation which is clearly out of hand and which we need to handle by providing for a cooling-off period. As to the way that it is being done here, I just think that the legislation is totally over the top and disproportionate to what we are trying to achieve.

MS TUCKER (12.18): I share some of the concerns that Mr Moore has just raised. In the in-principle stage, I expressed concerns about the legislation being poorly drafted, amongst other issues. We are also concerned about the basic response as a penalty and how it sits with other penalties and the lack of consistency. I support Mr Rugendyke's intention. I understand what he is trying to deal with. I am aware of that and supportive of it, but we do have concerns about the response that he has come up with.

Since the recommendations of the Urban Services Committee, we have had Mr Rugendyke put a range of amendments which tighten up the legislation. The committee also recommended that the new legislation be closely monitored over the next year and that the Government advise the Assembly of suitable sites for burnout events to be conducted legally, and I agree with those recommendations.

I am really interested in the punishment, which we discussed at length yesterday. It is interesting to compare the punishment for this offence with the punishment for other offences under the Motor Traffic Act. There is already an offence under section 119 of the Motor Traffic Act for racing another vehicle on a street. It carries a $200 fine and three demerit points. For exceeding the speed limit by between 15 and 30 kilometres an hour there is a fine of $180 and three demerit points. However, Mr Rugendyke has set a penalty for burnouts of a $1,000 fine, disqualification from holding a driving licence

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