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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 4014 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

They conduct a massive burnout for 20 seconds. Bill Stefaniak leaps out, rushes to the front door, waves his fist in the air, grabs the phone as he goes, calls the police, and they zoom off down the road. He says, "These blokes have just done a burnout in front of my house". Do you think the police are going to rush over? They will probably say, "I think he's gone, Mr Stefaniak. It wouldn't be worth our while coming". Notwithstanding all of the provisions which are set out in this law, do you think anything is going to change in relation to that matter because of this law? No, of course it is not. They will be long gone. It is not going to make any difference at all. This is merely a baseball bat being used to crack a nut.

The proposal to take people's property off them for being involved in a burnout is, as Jon Stanhope said earlier, outrageous. It is outrageous for the many reasons which he aptly described. Most particularly it is outrageous because people might be involved in an act of illegal behaviour, but if they are young, as they usually are, and have a motor car which is capable of doing these things - I might add that in my younger years I did not have a car that was capable of doing much more than skidding the wheels in loose gravel but - - -

Mr Quinlan: But we tried.

MR BERRY: Now and then. I think it is abundantly clear that police should not move in and take motor vehicles off young people for being involved in this sort of behaviour. It is not that I advocate these provisions applying to people who are involved in more serious offences against the Motor Traffic Act. For example, people who own a Porsche or a Volvo or a Jaguar and have been involved in some serious motor traffic infringement do not get their car taken from them by the police and have the matter dealt with in the courts. And neither should they. They should be dealt with in an appropriate way.

I am prepared to cop personally that burnouts have become a public nuisance around the built-up areas of the city, and it is appropriate for a penalty to apply, notwithstanding the fact that there are penalties which could apply now. But I am not prepared to stand up here and be seen to be part of a process which endorses this dramatic swing to the right in law-making in the ACT. This is the second event in this sitting period where we have seen this happen. I do not want to be associated with the members responsible for this, and I will not be. That is why I am on my feet today, to express my concern about the approach which is being taken. This is merely an attempt to label a group of people to respond to a perceived constituency in the community who might have young, sullen people dealt with harshly.

This is overly harsh. It is designed to draw attention to the muscle of the Government and others in the coalition who support this. It is an outrageous move. It will not improve the relationship between police and young people; it will harm it. It will certainly drag down this Assembly further, if it can be dragged down any further, in the eyes of young people who might be affected by this legislation.

Why is it that law and order issues are almost invariably targeted at young people? Anybody in this place who denies that at some stage in their life they were not sullen youth is simply misleading us and kidding the rest of the people in the community. It is

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