Page 3930 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Whilst a trolley by the side of the road may affect our amenity, I have serious concerns about whether this Assembly passing legislation will make such a problem any less likely. Does anyone here actually think that the carless uni student who walks their trolley back to their group house or apartment will be less likely to do so after this legislation? Does anyone think that the homeless person who keeps all their worldly possessions in a trolley will be less likely to do so after this legislation? Does anyone expect that the police will make the call that it is on reasonable grounds that a person leaves or intends to leave a shopping trolley in a public place? I do not think so.
This legislation originally said an authorised person or a police officer may remove the trolley to a retention area—a police officer. This is absolutely absurd and is not the right use of our resources. I am glad Mr Stanhope’s amendments have at least removed that provision. The clause whereby each shopping trolley was to have a unique ID—each shopping trolley was to have a number plate, in effect—was absolutely absurd, and I am glad Mr Stanhope’s amendments have fixed that.
I believe the solution to the problem is not by moving legislation and is not by this Assembly overreaching into the lives of Canberrans. It is much more so to simply ask retailers to sort out this problem, if, indeed, there is one. I am sure there are some good people at TAMS who could have a chat with some retailers and try and make this come about independently.
Finally, let me comment on a fascinating letter from the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner. The commissioner has slammed Ms Le Couteur’s bill in a 10-page report into shopping trolleys—a 10-page report from the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner. I find that pretty amazing. Who would have thought when they set up the position of the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner that she would write a 10-page report into a shopping trolley bill? Who would have thought it? This commissioner and this legislation cannot stop 100 people living in five houses, cannot stop 25 people living in a single house, cannot stop five people living in a garage, cannot stop 25 people sharing one toilet—cannot stop any of that. But here we have it—we have got a 10-page report into shopping trolleys.
This is pretty special stuff, and I think it comes down to the fact that this government and indeed sometimes this Assembly do not have the right priorities. We are more interested in what happens in this place than what happens outside the perimeters of this building. We are more interested in getting a box next to our name ticked as saying we moved legislation rather than actually making a difference outside these four walls.
I think it is very disappointing that we sometimes have such an inward focus, that we actually are not in touch with our community, and we try and move legislation to stop shopping trolleys when we have all these other problems in our community that this government or this Assembly will not address. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that we should spend taxpayers’ money, the resources of Canberrans, by putting together a 10-page report which details why shopping trolley legislation is not consistent with the Human Rights Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video