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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 780 ..

about fireworks top the list of concerns that I and my colleagues have received, and are continually receiving, over 2½ years.

It is a shame that the Labor government is again not listening to the community and is pushing this bill forward in its current state. My constituents, particularly those in Macarthur, Monash, Wanniassa and Kambah, are really looking forward to leadership from the government in resolving this issue: the abuse of the majority by the minority irresponsibly and illegally using fireworks. If the government actually organised a fireworks event for special occasions such as New Year’s Eve, Australia Day and the June long weekend, the public would not feel the need to buy and abuse the use of fireworks at any time of the year.

This may reduce the level of disturbance and danger that the community is subjected to because fireworks are available to the public during certain periods and can be stockpiled. I implore the government to accept this amendment. I call upon my colleagues to support this amendment in the interests of community safety.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.59): Mr Pratt is once again seeking to effect a ban on the sale and use of consumer fireworks. This is a matter that was debated in the Assembly in September. The Assembly at that time rejected such a ban in anticipation of the government bringing forward comprehensive legislation for dealing with the fireworks problem.

Ms Tucker will move an amendment towards the end of this debate that will insert a robust accountability mechanism into the legislation. As the government have already stated publicly on a number of times, if the new regime does not work we will be forced to ban consumer fireworks. Nonetheless, Mr Pratt has sought to pre-empt this approach with his amendment. Mr Pratt’s amendment is in addition to the other serious offences provided for in part 5, point 1 of the bill.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MS GALLAGHER: These offences provide for an offence of unauthorised supply of certain dangerous substance, proposed section 76, which has a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units and seven years imprisonment, or both; and unauthorised use of certain dangerous substance, proposed section 79, which has a maximum penalty of 2,500 penalty units and 10 years imprisonment, or both. In addition, Mr Pratt has proposed that these be strict liability offences with a proposed maximum penalty of 50 penalty units and a maximum term of six months imprisonment.

As is clear, the illegal sale and use of explosives, which fireworks are part of, is very serious. Mr Pratt’s amendment would have the effect of downgrading the offences in relation to fireworks by suggesting that these types of offences in relation to fireworks are less serious than for other types of dangerous substances. This might be true in relation to small consumer fireworks, such as the fountain, but it is patently untrue in relation to larger display type fireworks.

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