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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5013 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

substantive legislation. The point about that substantive legislation is that it ensured that there was a proper debate in this place about the rights and wrongs of that legislation. That was the appropriate way to deal with it. But in this case the Government has chosen to go by way of regulation. We simply do not think that that is an appropriate way to deal with this matter of subordinate legislation.

Mr Speaker, the final thing I want to say about this, in response to Mr Hird's interjection, is that it will be argued by the Minister that this keeps us consistent with New South Wales. Also, we hear the tired, old argument from the Government that the Labor Party in New South Wales has done it; therefore, we should do it. We do not accept that. The Labor Party in the ACT and the ACT Legislative Assembly as a whole are entitled to make laws for the ACT which we think are right. I am not going to make a law in this place just because Bob Carr says that it is a good idea. Bob Carr and I disagree on a range of things. This is just one of them. I am perfectly comfortable standing up in this place - - -

A member: You have met him.

MR WHITECROSS: Yes, I have met Bob Carr; so, I am qualified to say this.

Mr Moore: In a room?

Mr Berry: I am going to, soon.

MR WHITECROSS: I have met Mr Egan, too, for what that is worth.

Mrs Carnell: He was never, ever, ever, ever, going to sell his electricity.

MR WHITECROSS: Yes, unlike me; I am definitely not selling it. Mr Speaker, I do not feel at all uncomfortable about taking a different position from my colleagues in New South Wales on the matter of double demerits. The Labor Party in New South Wales, for its own reasons, has decided that running a sort of law and order campaign with lots of onerous penalties is a way to win votes. It is not my idea of the correct way of handling things. I do not believe that it is appropriate to increase penalties arbitrarily to send messages. You have penalties which fit the offence that has been committed. You do not have penalties just to send messages.

If you want to send a message, then it is up to the Minister and it is up to the Government to go out and send a message. For what it is worth, I, for one, am happy to send messages about the dangers of drink-driving, lack of care and attention on our roads, or speeding on our roads. I am happy to send those messages, too; but not by way of arbitrary decisions by the Minister that, on a given day of the year, the penalty shall be twice what it would otherwise be. That is not what I call just, and that is why we have moved this disallowance motion.

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