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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2542 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Might I say, Mr Speaker, that taking children's bikes, especially from schools and especially from primary schools, is a low, mongrel act. Schools do their best to ensure that places are padlocked. Teachers, of course, do playground duty. But I suppose our schools are open places. It is like anything else, Mr Speaker: you cannot completely counter the actions of determined thieves.

We have passed the thefts that have been reported-and in particular, the thefts at the schools that you have referred to, Mr Osborne-onto the police. I understand they are doing increased patrols and the schools are taking extra steps where they can. I think it would be unrealistic, though, and unreasonable, to expect the schools to compensate people for every item that is stolen. Regrettably, from time to time items will be stolen and I think it is up to schools to take every reasonable step they can, and I am certainly happy that that is in fact occurring.

It is very difficult, however, to have someone looking at all areas of a school, at all hours of the day. I think, regrettably, despite the very best efforts, determined thieves with bolt cutters may on occasions get through. However, we have informed the police and certainly they are well aware of that. I am aware that extra patrols and extra vigilance are being provided in an attempt to stop this occurring and, hopefully, the thieves will be caught if they try it again.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Osborne, do you have a supplementary question?

MR OSBORNE: Yes. There is the issue of whether or not the government has insurance for this type of theft. Have you pursued it? Would it be too costly? Could you answer that?

MR STEFANIAK: It may well be too costly. The government, of course, self-insures as a matter of course. The government is looking at some aspects of insurance in certain areas, which might in fact be a less costly option for government than traditional forms of self-insurance. My initial reaction to that is that probably that type of insurance may well be too costly. It is regrettable that, given the sort of society we live in, another option might be parents taking out insurance for things like bikes being stolen. But we are looking at areas where government might take out insurance. I am happy to have a look at that but I do not know that the end result will be of any benefit to the people concerned. It strikes me it may well be too costly an option, but I am certainly happy to have a look at that.

MR RUGENDYKE: My question to the Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell, relates to the government's commitment to local businesses, such as we have seen with the Bruce Stadium turf issue! Members are obviously aware that the turf provider for Bruce is the same turf provider from Melbourne that was contracted to Colonial Stadium. I am sure everyone is familiar with the surface debacle at Colonial this year-

Mr Osborne: And the Olympic stadium.

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