Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 27 August 2009) . . Page.. 3824 ..
who it was that passed the law that actually outlawed this sort of behaviour. I would not mind betting it was the Liberal Party. I will check that and see who it was that introduced into the Assembly legislation to provide that it was not acceptable—in fact, it was illegal—to display goods on unleased territory land.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: There you go. This is the law. We can question it. Indeed, if the Liberal Party feel this strongly about this particular practice, we can look forward to their amendments to the legislation.
But I think, to be fair to the city rangers that have issued these notices, the city rangers received complaints—in some instances, from other retailers; in some instances, from the public—in relation to the practice by some retailers of placing on the footpath racks of goods, whether it be shoes, whether it be CDs or, in the instance of complaints that have been received in Fyshwick, whether it be used cars parked on road verges in significant numbers by used car yards for the purpose of their display for sale.
Mr Hanson: This is Garema Place, Jon.
MR STANHOPE: This is the issue in most of these complex issues. You reduce them down and you seek to simplify them. So the Liberal Party thinks, “Okay, we’ll turn a blind eye to breaches of the law in Garema Place but let’s not talk about used cars being parked along the entire road verge in Fyshwick.” The history of this issue, in fact, goes to a coronial report in relation to a death in Fyshwick.
Mr Hanson: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the minister was asked a specific question about Garema Place, not about Fyshwick. I ask you to ask him to come back to the relevant question.
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chief Minister is discussing the laws relating to things on the footpath.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The context of the application of this law territory wide is relevant to a proper, cogent answer to the question.
Yes, all right, we could isolate it to two or three shops in Garema Place, the focus of the Canberra Times’ attention as of today. What about all the other examples? Where do you draw the line? Let us not apply the law in Garema Place but you want us to apply it in Fyshwick.
Do you want us to apply it if one of your neighbours starts parking unregistered cars or actually leaving his unwanted white goods on his front verge in your street? If your neighbour decides to turn over all his white goods, he cannot be bothered taking them to the dump and he says, “I’ll just stick those out there on the verge; the government’s no longer implementing or enforcing laws in relation to the placement of goods on unleased territory land,” where would you like the government to draw the line in the enforcement of this particular regulation?