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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 4019 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The vehicle may be disposed of otherwise than by sale if the chief police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the vehicle has no monetary value or that the proceeds of the sale would be unlikely to exceed the costs of sale.

We could have a case where, according to the police officer, the vehicle does not have enough value to warrant it being sold so it can be disposed of otherwise than by sale. What does that mean? Can it be handed over to another 19-year-old kid as a gift? What does it mean? What is intended there? It goes on:

What are the methods by which the chief police officer may achieve this? It concerns me greatly that it is open ended, even if you accept the fact that the vehicle should be forfeited and sold, which I do not. That part of the Bill gives me a stitch. When the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 comes up for debate next year, I will seriously consider putting forward amendments to delete clauses concerning forfeiture.

That leaves me in a quandary, because I am being asked to vote today on a Bill that incorporates it on an interim basis. I could be accused in three months time of being a hypocrite if I let it go through today and in two or three months' time I try to take it out. I do not like being put in that position. On the other hand, I do not want to reject Mr Rugendyke's Bill because I agree with 95 per cent of it. So I am in a quandary. I am going to have to make a decision.

On balance, I will support the Bill, despite my reservations about it, because I will have another opportunity in two months' time to deal with those issues that concern me. I will have to deal with them then because I do not have the time to deal with them today. I just wanted to put on record my feeling about it. I think most of the Bill is fine, but in my view that part of it is draconian. I do not think it is necessary. There is sufficient retribution either in the Bill or that can be built into the Bill.

If somebody is foolish enough to come back a second time for the same offence, we can make provision for reinforcing the problem that this person is creating. I think we can do it without taking possession of that person's property and either giving it away, dumping it in the tip, dropping a large rock on it from a great height or whatever the proposed method of disposal is. I will be supporting the Bill today, because I think something needs to be on the table over the next two to three months. But when the other Bill comes up for debate, the longer term one, I will be closely examining it and moving to change it.

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