<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2008-06-05" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3641" />
  <endPage num="3705" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) (Prescribed Offences) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000052">
        <heading>CRIMINAL LAW (CLAMPING, IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) (PRESCRIBED OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000053">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000054">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000055">(Continued from 6 March 2008. Page 2466.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="3120" kind="speech">
          <name>Mr PEDERICK</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Hammond</electorate>
          <startTime time="2008-06-05T10:58:00" />
          <page num="3645" />
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000056">
            <timeStamp time="2008-06-05T10:58:00" />
            <by role="member" id="3120">Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:58): </by> I rise today to support the motion to expand the powers relating to clamping of vehicles to include an offence against section 17 of the Summary Offences Act. Too many times in our community we see acts of hoon driving and other types of inappropriate use of vehicles stirring up neighbourhoods, etc., and causing distress in our community.</text>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000057">Only recently an extended road works program in Murray Bridge caused a lot of grief to residents who just did not want to pick up the pieces from people using vehicles inappropriately. A vehicle came skidding down a road while it was being resurfaced with new bitumen. The road was all white rubble at the time while the surface was being prepared. On this afternoon this person decided to throw the car sideways and land it on the pathway, and it almost hit some people but, thankfully, no-one was hurt. However, there was plenty of potential for someone being either severely hurt or killed in this instance.</text>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000058">I think that bringing in this measure to amend the original act is an excellent improvement, especially as it applies to people who use vehicles for criminal offences. We see many hundreds of businesses these days that have been forced to put up bollards in front of their premises. We have seen time and again on the evening news reports of people using vehicles to ram-raid business premises for quick vehicle access and, I guess, a quick getaway.</text>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000059">
            <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="19">Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:</event>
          </text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3120" kind="speech" continued="true">
          <name>Mr PEDERICK</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000060">
            <by role="member" id="3120">Mr PEDERICK: </by> Yes, as the member for Kavel just indicated, they also use their vehicles inappropriately, crashing into police vehicles which may be in pursuit, and this can cause the airbags to go off in the police vehicle and the chase has to end. Too many times we see the tragic tale of innocent people, such as the recent case of the SES volunteer just going to work, being hit by some idiot who, basically, is on the road unlawfully using a vehicle.</text>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000061">Frankly, I think we should make it even tougher; two strikes and you lose your vehicle forever. I am not sure what goes on at present, but I think the law needs to be tougher to really be a disincentive for people who use their vehicles inappropriately and in a criminal manner, often to ram-raid business premises or, for example, to hold up a bank or service station. I support the bill.</text>
          <text id="20080605c8e6ba14918d439780000062">Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>