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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1118 ..

MS TUCKER (12.18): I would like to speak very briefly to the motion. I support the motion. I think it needs to be made clear why. We have a situation at the moment where there is already confusion about what is actually happening because we have had publicity over proposals coming from the Labor Party and me on these rules. I understand the Government's concern to get the Impulse Airlines debate up and running and the pressure it feels there, but we should show respect to the community by acknowledging that there is pressure to complete this debate as well. If it means that we will have to work late tonight, so be it. I am quite happy to do that and I would expect other members to do so as well.

Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.19): The motion of Mr Hargreaves removes the entire rule for securing a vehicle. The objectives of rule 213 are to reduce the consequences of vehicle theft, which include the destruction of those vehicles, high-speed chases and the loss of life and limb, and the chances of children starting cars and causing crashes.(Extension of time granted) The intent of the rule was not to lock children in vehicles. Our proposal will clarify that. The Assembly should reject Mr Hargreaves' motion. It is lazy because he has not looked at the full implications of what he intends to do. By removing rule 213 in its entirety he will open all of us to lots of consequences that he has not thought about. I will bring forward the amending rules as quickly as I can. When I do, those who have difficulty with the locking section can knock it out if they wish; but to remove rule 213 entirely in the ACT is just plain silly.

MS TUCKER (12.20): Mr Speaker, I will be speaking to my proposed amendments as well as to Mr Hargreaves' amendment. I will address Mr Hargreaves' first as they seems to be what is being discussed a lot at the moment. I will be supporting Mr Hargreaves' motion to disallow rule 213 requiring motorists to secure their vehicles. The Australian Road Rules are primarily about how people should behave and interact when they are on the roads so as to avoid accidents and improve public safety. It seems odd that this rule has been included as it is primarily about reducing vehicle theft, which is really a different issue.

Mr Smyth was really drawing a long bow with his sad story about a child, as I saw Mr Rugendyke demonstrating. If you are going to put that argument, you will have to ban driving altogether because I can give you many examples of tragic deaths in cars. What are you saying here? It is terrible that that happened, but lives are lost every day in Australia because of cars and we are not going to say that people cannot drive cars at all. The element of individual responsibility is obviously what people believe has primacy here and we should do all we can to ensure that responsibility is taken by drivers in every aspect of their use of motor vehicles.

This rule is taking away the basic responsibility given to people there. It is not allowing them to look after personal property and not allowing them to make their own decisions about the risks they are prepared to accept of something being stolen. It seems very paternalistic and interventionist that we have to have these sorts of rules. Are we going

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