Page 588 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This means that offenders will include those renegades who dare to ride in wheelchairs, push children in prams and walk dogs on a footpath. One has to ask: Is Mr Crusher Connolly suggesting that they use the road instead? Or will he instigate a fine of a further $500 for using the road, thereby gaining a sure fund-raiser? That, of course, would be one of the major advantages of this.
Had this fine been in force last week, the revenue raised at my expense would have been in the vicinity of some $10,000. As an obvious recidivist, I was culpably pushing my wheelbarrow full of bricks - old Canberra commons, I might say, too - across the lawn, onto the footpath outside my house and around to the driveway where I was paving my driveway. I now discover, to my great sensitivity, that I was flouting the law. It was certainly not on purpose. It was an opportunity missed for revenue raising that would leave ACTEW for dead.
When we look at section 10 we see this:
Any person who, upon a public street ... rides a bicycle -
... ... ...
(b) without having his feet on the pedals thereof ...
Fair enough; we should aspire to the safe riding of bicycles. But $500 is the fine. Section 22 of the Act says:
Any person who, in any public street in the vicinity of any sale-yards, inconveniences passers-by or obstructs traffic by causing or permitting any animals -
(a) to assemble and remain standing ...
We are pleased to see that cats are not included in the definitions in the Bill, as I believe that cats are very difficult to train to take a sitting position, which would render their congregating legal. It is fortunate that sheep and dogs, who are a little easier to train, will not necessarily incur such a draconian fine, providing they do not remain standing.
These are the sorts of things that are covered by this increase from $100 to $500 in the Bill. Quite clearly, the amendment to the Act is entirely inadequate. If Mr Connolly believes that there are some serious areas that require an increase in the level of penalty, then appropriately he should legislate in that area. This general increase is entirely inappropriate and I urge members to vote against it.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, the time is now 9.30 pm. I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .