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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5021 ..

Mr Osborne: It is about trying to save lives. Sit down, you goose.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, I know that it is late and I know that you are tired and impatient, but I would have thought that you would still uphold the standing orders about interjections.

MR SPEAKER: You are all behaving as though you are waiting for Santa Claus, so I do not see any reason - - -

MR WHITECROSS: I am sure Santa Claus is not going to bring you a Christmas present, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: I wish your constituents could see you all now.

MR WHITECROSS: At least we will still have constituents. Mr Speaker, a couple of arguments have been raised in debate tonight which I think ought to be considered. First of all, there is the argument about deterrence, the argument that the Minister out of the blue deciding that a different penalty should apply on a particular day of the year magically provides a deterrence against breaking the law which is not important at any other time of the year. As Mr Moore said, the problem with using increases in penalties as a deterrence measure is that it has only a short-term effect. It is good for a couple of days. Usually it has more to do with the press release put out by the Minister than it has to do with any substantial increase in fear. Again and again criminologists will tell you that what really acts as a deterrent is not the size of the penalty; it is the risk of being caught. Yet what did we find on the October long weekend? We put up the penalties, but we did not put any police on the road; so there were not any police to catch anybody. I would be much more impressed if the Government focused their attention on education - in other words, persuading people to absorb into their minds, into their consciousness, the importance of abiding by the motor traffic laws and to absorb into their consciousness the notion that if they break the law they will be caught. They are the two most important things.

Mr Stefaniak: And punished severely. They go hand in hand.

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Stefaniak keeps interjecting about punishment. We all know Mr Stefaniak's position on punishment. Mr Stefaniak is the man who believes in move-on powers. He believes in punishing people before they have committed an offence. Mr Stefaniak believes that you ought to be able to hand out fines to people because someone thinks that they might be going to commit an offence. That is Mr Stefaniak for you. When we hear Mr Stefaniak's opinion on law and order, we have to understand it in the context of Mr Stefaniak's total philosophy. Mr Stefaniak's total philosophy is to punish people before they have even committed an offence, let alone afterwards. Mr Stefaniak would probably like us to cancel everyone's licence if they are picked up by the police, not just institute double demerit points. I am not sure, Mr Stefaniak, that your arguments carry much weight with the majority. The fact is that no evidence has been produced by the Government in the debate tonight, or at any time in the past, that double demerits make any difference. It is a simple case of thumping the law and order drum.

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