Page 662 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a big event. In discussions with the government, my office suggested the bill should contain another offence provision which is not a strict liability offence but which contains a realistic fine which could discourage any licence holder from putting profits above environmental, amenity or public safety concerns.
I understand that the office responsible for oversighting penalty clauses considered that the penalty of 20 units was commensurate with similarly serious offences in other acts. However, I cannot agree with this because the potential for public mischief resulting from the breach of a dragway licence is far greater than the consequences which can flow from offences in other acts which attract the penalty of 20 penalty units. A much higher penalty would be appropriate.
The definition in clause 15 seems to define any additional conditions put on a licence as disciplinary action. Given that most conditions will be uncontroversial and will be added to a licence by consent, it seems a bit harsh to define any amendment of licence conditions as disciplinary action.
Under the provisions of clause 16, the minister must wait a minimum of 24 days before disciplinary action takes effect, unless there is consent or the immediate suspension of a licence. This seems to unnecessarily curtail the otherwise very wide discretion that the bill provides the minister to set conditions prior to a licence being approved. While I support the commitment to procedural fairness implicit in clause 10, its scope seems to be excessive in this context.
Clause 21 seems rather too wide. A participant—say, a pit crew worker for a foreign racing car driver—is unlikely to know whether a condition is being breached by the organiser. I hope discretion is used when deciding whether to prosecute under this section.
Clause 33 paragraph (2) seems remarkably wide. I would have thought that everyone affected by a decision on the proposed dragway would include every northside resident whose quiet amenity will be disrupted by screaming drag car engines. If the government decides that these people are not sufficiently affected by the decisions, I hope it can still see fit to publish reviewable decisions in the Canberra Times, in local Chronicle newspapers and at shopping centres.
Finally, in relation to clause 34, I urge the government to ensure that incorporated documents are published on the government website as soon as possible after they are adopted. To ensure maximum transparency and public consultation, any incorporated documents should be published on the website as soon as the government is aware that they are proposed to be adopted.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs, and Acting Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (11.41): The government has decided, after deep consideration, not to support this amendment. It does need to be understood, to put the legislation in perspective, that it is based on existing New South Wales legislation that, I am advised, has operated very satisfactorily in New South Wales for more than 20 years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .