Page 4704 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Some of the arguments put forward for continuing to allow access of this kind deserve to be looked at very carefully. It was pointed out, for example, that young people use skateboarding as a form of exercise. I quote what Mrs Doobov from the Council on the Ageing said about exercise, on the other side of the ledger:
One of the recreations that a lot of older people like to do is walk. As anyone from Health will say, it is a very healthy activity and it keeps people independent; it keeps them out in the world; it keeps them in the community. If they are frightened to go into public places to go window shopping and things like that, and go to places where they can stop and have a cup of coffee or something, that leads to social isolation, and social isolation leads to ill health and those kinds of consequences.
That is a very genuine concern. Representatives of the Minister's department expressed concern about the problem of enforcement, the difficulty in enforcing a $40 fine against young people, the difficulties in prosecuting young people under the Children's Services Act, and things of that kind. If we take heed of that advice, we miss the point of the legislation. Of course, a $40 fine is not worth the Territory's while to collect.
I would hope that if there were such provisions in the Territory's legislation we would very rarely see anybody prosecuted for skateboarding in a public place. But, of course, having a provision of that kind does allow a policeman or a policewoman to direct or request a young person to cease skateboarding in a manner which is particularly dangerous to the community. I believe that our police will exercise discretion and judgment in these matters. I do not believe that they would exercise the power against somebody using a skateboard as a safe form of transport. I believe that they would be tempted to use it in circumstances where skateboarding constituted a potential danger to the public. That is the kind of discretion which we should have in our legislation but which we do not presently have.
I favour a system whereby we can trial the use of this scheme for a limited time in a limited area such as Garema Place, to see whether it would be effective. If it were done in conjunction with the establishment of facilities in the ACT, we could see whether these facilities had the same effect as a ban on this kind of activity in some other place nearby that was inappropriate. That has not been the view of the committee, and no doubt, Madam Speaker, my party will go to the next election with the view that this kind of measure to protect particularly the elderly in our community should be put into law.
I might say in closing, Madam Speaker, that I have some concerns about the way the committee process was able to work on this issue. Of course, the committee sat down at the very beginning of its deliberations on this issue in the face of very strong statements from the Attorney-General that the Government would not countenance this legislation. I believe, although she would not say it, that this put Mrs Grassby and her predecessor, Mr Lamont, in a position where they found it very difficult even to consider this legislation. I also note that there were comments by the Attorney-General in the last two weeks, very near to the reporting date of this committee, making it perfectly clear that the Government would not be considering the legislation which was the subject of this report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .