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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3982 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

This is not a strategic way to go about approaching the serious problems we have in relation to the need for us to change the culture of speed and the culture of larrikinism on the road. It is wrong that we elevate this single offence, which boiled down is the offence of dangerous driving, above what every one of us knows are far more serious offences.

There can be no confidence in a system of justice - and this is important in terms of the philosophy of punishment and the philosophy of justice in relation to our response to law and order issues - that elevates an offence that we do not regard as of the first order of offence in relation to a range of traffic offences. It is dangerous to elevate an offence which we know to be not the most serious of offences over and above every other offence that is committed in relation to that particular area of the law. It brings the law into disrepute.

Those people who do have their vehicles confiscated, who do potentially have their vehicles sold as a result of wheel spinning, will have no respect for authority, for this parliament or for those who have imposed this unfair and unjust hierarchy on them because they know in their hearts, as we all know, that they are being punished more severely than transgressors who offend more severely than they have. That is simply not right. It is not fair and it will bring the law into disrepute and it will bring the police into disrepute. Those people who are subjected to police action as a result of this law will know that they are being unfairly treated. It will bring the police into disrepute, it will bring the law into disrepute and it will not solve the problem that it seeks to solve.

Debate interrupted.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Chief Minister. On 26 November the Chief Minister told ABC radio that the Assembly passed legislation to alter the manner in which the Bruce Stadium redevelopment was financially structured. The Chief Minister said the Assembly "wasn't happy with the financing approach" that the Government had taken - that is, presumably, the plan to have the private sector pay for most of the project - and insisted on going to a "full public funding". The Assembly, said the Chief Minister, forced the Government to withdraw from the deal it had in place with the Commonwealth Bank for "a significant amount of the funding". Can the Chief Minister tell the Assembly, for the benefit of those members who might have missed it, which particular piece of legislation imposed the requirement on the Government to meet the cost of the redevelopment fiasco from the public purse? When did the Government withdraw from the deal with the Commonwealth Bank, and why were the details of the deal with the Commonwealth Bank not included in the papers on Bruce Stadium tabled in the Assembly? Will the Chief Minister now table the correspondence relating to the deal and the Government's withdrawal from the deal?

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