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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3585 ..

MS GALLAGHER (continuing):

The government will not be supporting this bill. We will be bringing forward a bill to deal with the range of issues that have arisen regarding fireworks over the past couple of years. I think it is an issue that has vexed every member in this place. We think the way our legislation is being drafted is the way forward. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot consider the two bills at the same time, but that was just not possible.

I urge members to consider the fact that the categories of dangerous substances, hazardous substances and dangerous goods in our community extend far beyond fireworks and that we should be a little more sensible with our legislative reform on this matter. It should be a lot more comprehensive than simply banning the retail sale of fireworks to members of the public.

MS DUNDAS (11.13): Mr Speaker, the ACT Democrats will not be supporting Mr Pratt's bill today. There has been an enormous amount of community concern and debate about the use of fireworks in the territory. As I know other members of this Assembly have, I have been receiving a huge number of letters and phone calls about this issue over the last year, both for and against the prohibition of shopgoods fireworks.

This has been quite a contentious debate in the community and I have considered the views of the residents who contacted me very carefully and seriously. I want to thank those who took the time to contact me with their views and those responsible for the well-considered way in which the debate has progressed.

However, I think that Mr Pratt's bill represents a knee-jerk reaction to the issue at hand. I certainly believe that the offences created by this bill represent an approach that is far too draconian for the Democrats to support, in any case. In particular, I believe that the creation of strict liability offences in this bill is extremely inappropriate. I also believe that the penalties for offences created by this bill are unnecessarily high, with 100 penalty units and one-year's imprisonment being the chosen penalty for most of the offences in the bill.

To get some idea of what these equated to, I had a quick flick through the Crimes Act and found it was the same penalty as those incurred for indecent exposure, forcible entry onto land, possession of a weapon or disabling substance with intent, or leaving a child unattended in a place and for a time that could place the child in danger. Mr Pratt thinks the punishment for these offences should equal that for lighting a firework.

I also note that the penalties for Mr Pratt's offences of lighting fireworks are greater than those for possessing a knife at school, selling a knife to a person under 16, laying poison, or destroying or damaging property worth less than $1,000. In Mr Pratt's eyes, it then appears, you should receive a harsher penalty if you light a firework that might scare the dog next door than if you put down poison that will likely kill it. Alternatively, if somebody blew up a letterbox with fireworks, they would be penalised more harshly for lighting the firework than destroying the letterbox, the actual damage done.

This bill demonstrates many of the reasons the ACT Democrats oppose the criminalisation of shopgoods fireworks. The Democrats generally take a harm minimisation approach to dealing with controversial issues in the community and, instead of using the blunt and draconian approaches of prohibition and criminalisation,

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