Page 3022 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a powerful deterrent for recidivist offending, and recidivist offending is a problem for this community.
Let’s look at the impact of this recidivist offending. At Chisholm shops recently, local residents witnessed repeated burnouts in which the offenders returned with impunity to add to their burnout patterns. In those cases, the offenders were able to remain on site for extended periods, despite residents calling the police to plead for intervention. As I have said, the opposition do support the amendment bill on the basis that it does deal more fairly with offenders who are waiting for a court appearance, but we are critical of the Stanhope government for doing little to stop court time blowing out in the first place.
Mr Speaker, I would like today to foreshadow here increasing penalties that will make it a must for cars to be impounded and to direct the courts to sell offenders’ cars for recidivist offensive behaviour. This is not mandatory. The discretion is there, but something needs to be done to make the impact of our laws stronger and say to the magistrates of our courts, “For God’s sake, you have got before you a person who has offended four, five, six or seven times. It is now time to get rid of that guy’s car.”
Mr Hargreaves: It is gone. Read the regs.
MR PRATT: Yes, but the legislation says that the Chief Police Officer may seize and forfeit.
Mr Hargreaves: No, for a third offence you lose your car. It is sold. Read the legislation.
MR PRATT: I do not think it says that.
Mr Hargreaves: Bill put it in. Tell him, Bill.
MR PRATT: You were going to have a 90-second speech, minister. Let’s see if you can add to that and spell this out. As it stands, we have legislation which says that the police may impound the offender’s vehicle and may sell the offender’s vehicle. I am saying to the Assembly today that there are not enough “musts” and too many “mays” in the current legislation. There is a desperate need for improvement to this legislation to make those provisions tougher.
Mr Speaker, you have seen what the NRMA Road Safety Trust have had to say about police presence and you have seen what other community groups have had to say about the need for police presence. If we cannot get that police presence up sufficiently in the short term or the medium term, at least, for God’s sake, make sure that our laws are tough enough to be the strong deterrents that they need to be. We call upon you, minister, to go back and amend this bill to tighten the legislation, to give stronger directions to the Chief Police Officer about what decisions are taken about confiscation and then forfeiture.
While a lot can be done to improve police presence, of course you cannot cover the entire territory with a policeman at every letterbox, minister. Therefore, in addition to improving the police presence, you have to toughen your laws. You have to be less timid
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .