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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 4030 ..

MR HARGREAVES (5.26): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No. 8 circulated in my name:

Mr Speaker, this division, the miscellaneous division, talks about legal immunity. What it says here is that a police officer or a person engaged by the chief police officer, acting at the direction of a police officer, who has seized or impounded a motor vehicle under this part, is not liable while the vehicle is in his or her charge for any damage caused to the vehicle, unless the damage is caused by his or her negligence or deliberate action, or for the loss of the vehicle due to its theft by another person, unless he or she has assisted in the commission of the theft.

Some kid gets his car impounded and it goes off to, let us suggest, a Totalcare fleet yard. It is put it in there because these people do this at the direction of the police officer. The guy locks the door, the gates, does his job, goes home. Then some other little hood gets over a wire fence not patrolled particularly well; vandalises the car, smashes it, and takes out all the good gear because it is a nice, spunky looking motor car. That is quite possibly what would happen.

This provision allows people to just take the car, lock it up in a yard, walk away and ignore the duty of care. Before they can be held liable for it, the damage has to be caused by his or her negligence or deliberate action, unless he or she has assisted in the commission of the theft. A person doing what I have just described is not negligent; they have done their job. The negligence could very well be on the part of a third party. But where is the liability of the third party? Not here. You are asking these people to take somebody's car, lock it up and just walk away. Unless they are crooks themselves, they are fine. It is outrageous. We should be holding these people responsible for it.

You are holding these young people responsible for the burnouts, to the extent that you are introducing draconian measures; you are going to fine them 2,000 bucks, you are going to take their car for a minimum of three months, sometimes forever. But during that three months, you are also saying, "Right, mate, you run the risk of having your car vandalised". Mr Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that we would address ourselves to the fixing up of hoons and leaving these people in as vulnerable position as we have.

Earlier in this Bill it says that a police officer can say, for example, to a tow truck driver or a person who is adept at picking locks and hot-wiring vehicles, "Please do that to make sure that we can take it away". Okay, so they do. And then it is taken away by a tow truck driver. But does he have any real responsibility for it? No. If he is negligent, yes. If it is a deliberate action, yes.

MR SPEAKER: Excuse me, Mr Hargreaves, I regret to inform you that your amendment No. 8 is out of order. The Assembly has already agreed to amendment No. 29 of Mr Rugendyke's. That effectively prevents you moving amendment No. 8 to omit the division. We have just agreed to include the division.

MR HARGREAVES: Very well, Mr Speaker, I will not pursue the matter.

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