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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3975 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this amendment adds to proposed new section 139J provisions for a person convicted of an offence under section 19 or 19AA. It describes current offenders and repeat offenders and provides a penalty for repeat offenders.

Amendment agreed to.

MR RUGENDYKE (12.03): Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, this amendment is a machinery one relating to the transfer of the running of an event to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from the way I had it in the first place, run by the police.

Amendment agreed to.

MR HARGREAVES (12.04): Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, this is the first issue on which I expect to cause some angst. This provision goes hand in hand with later provisions in terms of the seizure of the vehicle of a person found to be breaching the burnouts legislation. It was said by one of the Ministers recently, I think as a throwaway line, that this burnouts legislation is consistent with national transport reforms. That is not true. This legislation is somewhat draconian and has not been endorsed across the country. Maybe it has been in Newcastle. Maybe it has been in Sydney, but I am not aware of that. But I do not know of any other jurisdiction where it is applicable. Let us look at the wording of proposed new section 139K(1). It says:

It can apply if a police officer suspects that somebody has done a burnout. There are no time limits or anything else on it. He can rock around to a house and seize a vehicle if he suspects it on reasonable grounds. Mr Speaker, I do not think it is on for a police officer to say, "I received information that a burnout has taken place with a red V8 Ford", and go to the first person he spots with a red V8 Ford and knock it off. I do not believe that to be at all correct. Later in the story there is talk about having to pay prescribed fees to recover the vehicles, but I cannot see any detail about that. This is big brother stuff to the absolute extreme.

Mr Speaker, I want this Assembly to consider whether the penalties which pertain to doing a burnout are not significant enough already. We are talking about a penalty of $2,000. If the offender is a body corporate, it is 250 penalty units. Mr Speaker, can you imagine a body corporate actually doing burnouts down Lonsdale Street of a night? The mind boggles. It just shows the degree of thought that has gone into this sort of stuff.

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