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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 204 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

the reference to prohibited substances from there. Of course, the definition of "prohibited substance" and proposed new subsection (2)(a) are related, so we seek to remove them both.

I seek Mr Rugendyke's support for this amendment and offer him the opportunity to come back and amend this piece of legislation, if it gets up, to address both how we stop active participation in burnouts and the deliberate act of doing burnouts and the appropriate level of penalty for doing burnouts. It has not been acknowledged by either this Government or Mr Rugendyke that we do support the intention behind what is being proposed. It is just a matter of how we are going about it. We think it is a bit draconian and we think that you have missed a good point.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.34): Mr Speaker, I must respond to Mr Hargreaves' soliloquy. One of the recommendations of the committee that looked at this Bill in the first place was that the use of any substance, liquid or lubricant in conjunction with prohibited conduct should attract an increased penalty. There was no dissenting report from anyone on the committee that looked at this matter. The committee also considered that the act of doing a burnout, particularly in a public place such as Lonsdale Street, constituted a potentially serious risk of injury to the public, especially where substances were deliberately dropped onto the road to facilitate the burnout.

It is somewhat of a furphy for Mr Hargreaves to bleat about a $1,000 penalty on top of the 20 penalty points that he is proposing for an ordinary burnout. In fact, the traffic infringements applying to burnouts have set penalties of $355 for a traffic infringement notice and $456 for what is called an aggravated burnout, being pouring a substance on the road to facilitate the burnout. It could be petrol, oil, marbles or gravel, all substances which could cause injury or damage to either spectators or the road surface.

We are aware that people set up their cars for doing burnouts with little devices that pour substances such as oil, brake fluid or petrol directly onto the wheels just by the flick of a little switch. Mr Hargreaves might think that that is fairly safe, but I certainly do not. Mr Speaker, I do not support Mr Hargreaves' attempt to dismantle completely the intent of this legislation. It is, after all, based on legislation introduced by the New South Wales Labor Government. The New South Wales Labor Government saw fit to do something about this problem and I agree with it. Therefore, I will not be supporting Mr Hargreaves' amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (4.38): Mr Speaker, I move:

I present an explanatory memorandum.

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