Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 199 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
message is getting out there and that we will see a number of people reconsidering their behaviour because we have passed these very appropriate laws to deal with these sorts of crimes on the streets of Canberra.
To say that, because you have passed a law prohibiting something and people still do it, proves that the law is not working is an argument that we would have logically to apply to repeal laws on things such as murder, arson and armed robbery because, having made those crimes illegal, people are still committing them. I do not think that Mr Berry is actually suggesting that seriously. Perhaps he just did not think through what he was saying. That would not surprise me somehow.
Mr Berry knows that lots of people in residential areas of our city have been extremely concerned about the number of burnouts taking place on residential streets. They are the ones who have lobbied members of this place, including some of Mr Berry's colleagues and probably Mr Berry himself, urging us to do something about this problem. We have done something about the problem. We have dealt with the issue and we will see whether it is effective in curtailing the number of such burnouts on the streets of Canberra. I suspect that it will be.
MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (4.17): Mr Speaker, in Mr Smyth's absence, I would like to indicate that the Government will not be accepting Mr Hargreaves' argument. Basically, he is trying to do the same as he did unsuccessfully in December, that is, take out of the legislation the extra penalty for an aggravated burnout, which involves putting oil on the road, and remove all the impounding provisions. Mr Humphries mentioned, as an aside, how the laws are effective and the message is getting through. I note that four vehicles have been impounded, two on the north side of Canberra.
I was pleased to read a newspaper article - I am not sure which newspaper it was in - dealing with the success of the legislation so far in terms of the incidence of burnouts in the Civic area and on the north side having been considerable reduced. It is quite clear that the message is getting across to potential offenders that they risk the impounding of their cars. I congratulate Mr Rugendyke on introducing what appears to be a very effective law that seems to be working very quickly indeed. I would think that, as a result of the message getting through, we will see fewer and fewer instances of very dangerous driving which has the potential to do just what Mr Berry mentioned, that is, cause loss of life or limb to people who happen to be in the vicinity.
MR BERRY (4.18): Mr Speaker, some members were rude enough to presume that I had said certain things in relation to this matter. Let me put the record straight. I have always said that this law is appalling and will affect mostly the poor and the young.
Mr Humphries: Ha, ha!
MR BERRY
: What are you laughing at? It does affect the poor and the young. The Government bases the success of its legislation on the number of cars it has grabbed hold of. Yahoo, what a great success that is! The fact of the matter is that you base the success of the law on the observance of the law. Mr Humphries said - I am glad that he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .