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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 203 ..

person who organised it by actually putting the stuff on the road for these people to do the burnouts? If we really want to cut it out, we have to address the issue of the deliberate nature of this offence. If that is too much for people to fathom, I am sorry about that.

Mr Speaker, I will reiterate the other half of it for the benefit of Mr Rugendyke, the originator of this Bill, and Mr Smyth, who is having the usual conversation with poor old Mr Rugendyke to distract him from listening to some logic.

Mr Rugendyke: I am listening.

MR HARGREAVES: Do you seriously believe that the placing of an oil slick underneath the wheels of a vehicle should attract a 50 per cent greater penalty?

Mr Humphries: Yes.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Humphries says yes. I must admit, Mr Speaker, that I would not have guessed that in a month of Sundays, but for Mr Berry's comment earlier that that is the sort of thing that you would expect from this right-wing conservative Government. I take his point and I think he is right. I am just surprised to see the extra penalty being as low as 50 per cent. Perhaps it would have been better to have doubled it.

Mr Humphries: That is not a bad idea.

MR HARGREAVES: "That is not a bad idea", says the right-wing conservative Attorney-General across the chamber; wonderful stuff.

Mr Humphries: We will suspend them by their thumbs while we are at it.

MR HARGREAVES: Let the Hansard record show Mr Humphries' suggestion that we suspend them by their thumbs. From what, I would ask? Perhaps from the aerial of the car, along with the foxtail. We are seeing this rather serious issue being dealt with somewhat lightly by our esteemed Attorney-General. I must say that I am surprised and disappointed - in fact, I am mortified - to hear of such an approach.

I appeal to Mr Rugendyke to think about those two issues: Firstly, the person who has deliberately placed the material there to enable a burnout to happen is not penalised by what we have here. Arrange it, by all means, and we will support it. But we do not support the nicking of the car. We do support the applying of a significant financial penalty. Let us see something like that in there. The other thing is the penalty of 50 per cent extra for actually doing it in the first place. When you consider it, that is a penalty for being an accessory before the fact, but you are not penalising anyone else for being an accessory before the fact.

Also, if a person puts a prohibited substance under their vehicle, a penalty of an extra 50 per cent - $1,000 or more - is a bit over the top. If, for example, you had increased the penalty by 5 units or something like that, the point would have been taken; but we do not agree with this penalty. Mr Speaker, the intention of this amendment is to remove

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