Page 5712 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Not me.
MR MOORE: Exactly. Mr Kaine does not have any trees on his property, so he is right; he does not have that problem. We are talking about a fine of $5,000 for not cutting your hedge. It clearly is over the top. The judge has discretion in these matters, but I think that the Assembly should be giving the judiciary an indication of how serious we consider the matter. Therefore, I have moved my amendment, Mr Speaker. We rely on the discretion of the judiciary as to whether or not it is serious. I am sure that, if somebody who has been instructed to cut back their hedge from overhanging the footpath appears before a judge, the judge will say, "Well, go and cut your hedge". That most likely would be the result.
Mr Connolly: If it is contempt he might double or triple it.
MR MOORE: I hear the Minister interjecting that it is actually contempt of the order. You have been told that you will cut it. You do have to cut your hedge and you have decided not to. Even so, $5,000 is entirely over the top for that sort of thing - permitting a tree, a sapling, a plant or a shrub to overhang a public place. It really is. When I read this, it was one of the jokes as far as the legislation went. I went home and I looked along my footpath and added up how many times $5,000 I would be up for and thought, "This can't go on".
MR JENSEN (5.20): As members no doubt know, we had a similar amendment; so we support this proposal.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.20): I guess this might be a hard one to win. It is not as has been read on the surface. Mr Moore acknowledges that it is contempt of an order, which is a more serious penalty. It is not just the overhanging branches in your front yard, Mr Moore; it is obstruction of any passage or of any other activity. Let us put it to the vote. I am not going to get excited about it at this stage.
MR COLLAERY (5.21): I have just thrown an eye over this. I remember a matter in the Magistrates Court some years ago. I question the drafting at this stage. I am not going to move an amendment. I am going to put it on the record. Qualifying this provision are the words "so as to obstruct or inconvenience a person in that place". That can result in a situation where such matters have been thrown out in the past. I believe that it should have been "so as to obstruct or inconvenience a person using that place". The fact is that most boundary lines have some type of intrusion on them, but it is not reasonable for a person to be necessarily on that boundary line. I just say that you probably will have great difficulty in proving this, out of vagueness; but it is too late to do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .