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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3639 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Mr Samuel demonstrated, at least in that one exercise, that he does not care about, say, little shareholders, but it is an efficient operation. By sheer coincidence, while I was studying at college I did have to write a short thesis on the efficient markets hypothesis, which ranged into insider trading. So I have seen a little of it, and of course what insider trading does is advantage those with power. If a man proposes that insider trading not be a crime-in fact, states publicly that it is a good thing-and I know that the conduct of insider trading is, highly probably, going to disadvantage the small people and advantage the large, he is not the man for me.

Burnout legislation

MR STEFANIAK: My question is also addressed to Mr Quinlan, in his capacity as minister for police. Minister, I would like to congratulate the AFP for the success of its crackdown on burnouts in Lonsdale Street, Braddon. On 4 October this year the Canberra Times ran a report on the police campaign on burnouts where police seized 40 cars and launched prosecutions of 35 people captured on surveillance cameras. Cars seized under the operation will be held for three months and the owners on second offences will forfeit their cars.

This action was taken under the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Act of 1998, which Mr David Rugendyke developed and which was fully supported by the then Liberal government. As you will recall, minister, the Labor Party opposed this legislation at the time, and your colleague Mr Hargreaves stated in the Assembly on 9 December 1998 that the confiscation of motor vehicles "represents schoolyard bully tactics"and that the act "represents an infringement of people's civil liberties". Do you now acknowledge that the Labor Party's criticism of Mr Rugendyke's legislation was wrong?

MR QUINLAN: Well, just in logic, to seize something, particularly immediately, you would have to say, I think, Mr Stefaniak, that that is an infringement of someone's liberties, because what we have is a situation of virtually saying, "Right, judge and jury, bang, been done; you're in straight away."

At this stage, with a lot of legislation to which we objected, it is now in place. But certainly, if you go down there and do a burnout, and you are a young bloke and you have got no money other than your car, and your car is confiscated, and then tomorrow someone else who happens to be well-heeled goes there and does a burnout, that person can provide themselves with another car immediately, and there is great inequity in that process. The process of law should be better, and the principle-

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Quinlan, you are not responsible for Mr Hargreaves' comments, and the question is probably out of order.

Mr Stefaniak: He was a Labor spokesman, Mr Speaker.

Mr Humphries: He was asked about what another government member said. That's perfectly fair.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Quinlan is not responsible for Mr Hargreaves' comments.

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