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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 4021 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

this Assembly in February/March when we debate it next time. When we talk about penalties, the question I ask is: Are people going to receive a loss of driving points for their behaviour? I do not know the answer to that. I think we just slug them with a big bill , $2,000, for example. Perhaps we ought to give that some consideration the next time the Bill is debated. We would be very happy to support a financial penalty with a loss of points, if this happens. I think it would be a great move for this Assembly to get behind this particular activity, particularly in the next few months leading up to Summernats and burnout time in Lonsdale Street and Mort Street, instead of us fighting over what are essentially issues of civil liberty.

I would like to ask Mr Moore to support the next two amendments, in particular. I am happy to ask him to support this legislation with the proviso that he may not do so again when we come back in February or March. If we cannot sustain the argument in February or March, then so be it. We lose the argument. However, we have an opportunity here to be reasonable about it. I understand your need, Mr Rugendyke, for wanting to get on with it before this Christmas. You want to stop it now. You do not want to wait another 12 months to stop it, and that is fair.

However, I do ask that you pass my amendment that we are currently debating on the seizure, and support the following one which talks about impounding and forfeiture. Beyond that, the other ones are merely machinery ones and are consequential, so it does not matter that much. When we come back in February/March, we will look at it possibly in a completely different light. It would be pretty awful if we found that fines were enough of a deterrent. Why do we need to go with the big stick straight away? I would ask the house to support this amendment.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.50): To close this aspect of the debate, I appreciate Mr Kaine's thoughts on the matter. I accept what Mr Kaine says, although these amendments have been on the table in roundabout form for about 12 months. I understand Mr Moore's point. I appreciate the fact that Mr Moore has at least tried to leave the discussion open for compromise. I still believe that my amendments are more appropriate than the amendments proposed by Mr Moore. However, given Mr Kaine's speech, we still may talk about Mr Moore's amendments.

Mr Hargreaves' amendments, on the other hand, are simply designed to dismantle the intent of my legislation. The intent of my legislation is to offer a loud and clear message to the people performing this type of activity that it is not acceptable in our community. Mr Hargreaves just gave a rather hypocritical speech about now wanting to talk, but did he offer any alternative to simply wiping out the Bill? No. He did not offer alternative amendments like Mr Moore offered. Mr Moore at least discussed it. I ask members to support my amendments, and not the amendments of Mr Hargreaves.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Hargreaves' ) be agreed to.

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