Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2139 ..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
power to remove people's property. I once got a ticket for speeding and on that ticket the police sergeant was referred to as the informant. An informant informs the court of what went on and the court decides what the penalty is going to be and applies it. It is that principle that we debated with respect to the road rage bill. The consequences were all about who had the power to remove a person's motor vehicle.
The court has the power to remove it once given sufficient evidence. Interestingly, the bill that Mr Rugendyke wishes to reintroduce talks about a police officer taking away a motor vehicle on reasonable suspicion of a burnout having occurred. It also talks about his having a choice to do so within 10 days. I do not think that that ought to be the case. In my view, Mr Speaker, the judiciary can do so within the 10 days. What we are seeing here is an indication that Mr Rugendyke did not pick it at the time that we put down the road rage amendments. I know that Mr Kaine picked it. I know that the minister picked it, because he mentioned it to me before the debate. He asked me whether I was aware of the consequences of the provisions and I told him that I was.
The minister for health picked it and expressed similar words to me those, saying that we are talking about having a consistent principle here. Let it not be misunderstood by anybody: it was not an accident, Mr Speaker. Therefore, I oppose the suspension of standing orders. I see no reason to reconsider this matter at this late stage. If Mr Rugendyke is lucky enough to be re-elected, he can come back to the next Assembly and put the same amendments after the calendar year has concluded and we can debate them again.
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.49): Mr Speaker, the government will be supporting the motion simply because it believes that the law that was introduced was very successful. Re-presenting this bill will give us the opportunity to undo something that Labor has done. We believe that what has gone on here is that a very effective law that has seen an enormous decrease in the number of burnouts has been taken away from the people of the ACT. It is not a law that has been used a large number of times. It has been very effective simply through threatening the impounding of vehicles. We believe that it works, we believe that it is very effective, we believe that the people of Canberra support it, and we believe that the way that it was gone about was indicative of the way that the Labor Party goes about making legislation. We will support Mr Rugendyke in his motion.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (10.50): Mr Speaker, most of the government will be supporting it. It is a matter on which I am standing aside. As Mr Rugendyke knows, I have always objected to the approach of police being able to impound cars.
Mr Berry: Savour this moment, Michael; Wayne Berry agrees with you.
MR MOORE
: I am savouring it, Mr Berry. Since the legislation was, effectively, withdrawn, has there been a major increase in the number of burnouts? I have to say that there has not been to such an extent that it has been bothering me greatly. During the GMC car race, I drove down through Braddon, where burnouts are considered to be the biggest problem, and saw people driving fancy cars with low-profile tyres-they drive them downhill because they think it makes them go faster driving downhill-without
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .