HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW (CLAMPING, IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 3562.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:16): I speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate that we will be supporting this bill. Given the opposition's position I do not propose to keep the house long in respect to this matter, which I am sure members will be delighted to hear. This bill was introduced on 14 July to amend the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007. The principal act was passed only in recent years, and I think just about everyone here in the house, except, perhaps, the member for Frome, would be familiar with that legislation.

There was a 2006 election promise of the Rann government that it would increase provision for the impounding of vehicles from two to seven days and introduce a regime of wheel clamping and extend the use of that option to more offences, not just hoon driving, the original hoon driving laws having been introduced as an amendment to the Summary Offences Act.

Quite frankly, there has been a continued problem in the community of hoon and dangerous driving behaviour. There has been an increase in road fatalities this year. I think it is fair to say that last year the road toll in this state was kept down to 99, and that was a welcome reduction, but it is back up again at an alarming level.

It would be fair to say that road deaths are still far short of the suicide deaths toll that we suffer in South Australia, relative to most states around the country, but in any event we are talking about senseless death, something which all in the community should work hard to remedy. One way of dealing with this is to increase again the provision for impounding of vehicles and the laws relating to clamping, etc.

This is a bill which is designed as a response to this situation that we are still in. It increases the period that vehicles can be impounded or clamped by police from seven to 28 days, and there are certain obligations in respect to the police commissioner for the paying of costs for the impounding and attempts to be made to advise current registered owners of vehicles. Of course, where a vehicle is being used in the commission of one of these offences and a situation prevails where the real owner of that vehicle, who may have had no knowledge or consent to the vehicle being used in that offence, comes forward, then there is provision to protect, in particular, the release of the vehicle to the owner.

The second part of this proposed legislation is to provide for forfeiture in more than the current number or types of cases. On information from the government, this is to target offenders who have a history of committing and being found guilty of prescribed offences by increasing the period of court ordered impounding and reducing the number of chances before a vehicle can become eligible for court forfeiture.

For the purposes of consideration of these cases, the offending history will be considered at the date of the previous offence, not at the date of the previous conviction, so it will capture more history in that regard. There is power for the courts to impound up to six months where currently it is three months.

There are extra penalties for those who reoffend, and there is provision by regulation for other categories that may attract forfeiture. As I understand it, it is intended by regulation to include any indictable offence under section 19A, 19AB or 19AC of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. These include offences such as causing death or harm by dangerous use of vehicle or vessel, leaving an accident scene after causing death or harm by careless use of a vehicle or vessel, and dangerous driving to escape police pursuit.

The third aspect of this bill is to allow for the destruction of forfeited or uncollected vehicles, and there are certain obligations for the police commissioner and power for him to order destruction of vehicles with some safeguards as to costs and so on, but also to provide for situations which sometimes occur where there is absolutely no point in either selling a vehicle or disposing of it when the cost of disposal would be more than the value of the vehicle. Some discretion has been left with the police commissioner in that regard.

I was informed during the course of briefings about the number of vehicles that have been affected as a combination of clampings and impoundings in the past few years since this legislation has been operational, which we are about to expand. It seems as though, with the increasing severity and extent of the legislation in the times we have been back to amend it, there has been a corresponding significant increase in the number of vehicles affected. That is, they have either been clamped or impounded. I am not quite sure whether that is because personnel are more vigilant or have more power under the act or whether there has been a significant increase and we are not making a dent on this problem at all.

For the record, I will record that I am advised that number of vehicles affected—that is, a combination of clampings and impoundings—in 2005-06 was 693; in 2006-07, 791; in 2007-08, 1,461; and in 2008-09, 3,156. However that data might be interpreted, let us hope it is on the basis that it demonstrates the effectiveness of the action which this parliament has taken to support the government in further initiatives to expand the effect and severity of this legislation. If it is not, then regrettably we are still going to have a problem next year. Let us hope that we are able to see some positive response as a result of this legislation and the strengthening of these provisions in the interest particularly of the safety of those who use, access and try to traverse our roadways.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:25): I, too, rise to support this bill. My property where I live is on the Dukes Highway, and far too often we see what happens when there is a bit of inattention on the roads. I know it is not hoon driving as such a lot of the time but, when you see the results of high speed crashes at 110km/h each way and trucks that have burned—and, sadly, drivers that are burnt to death in the remains of their truck—it really brings back to you what can happen on the road. It is not just truck drivers; I have been at accident scenes where cars have gone underneath trucks, and there is no hope of survival when that happens.

However, getting back to hoon driving in the towns, I know there are areas in my electorate that are favourite places. One of those is Sturt Reserve at Murray Bridge; a few people get down there by the river and think they will have a bit of fun, put a few black marks on the road. The police get down there reasonably often and catch a few, but they would have to be down there full time to police it 110 per cent.

I support this bill going forward because all too often you read in the paper or hear about someone you know—a friend's child or grandchild—who has been driving a vehicle or been a passenger in a vehicle, just been out having a bit of fun—or so they thought. Speeding, a bit of irrational behaviour on the road, and it all ends in tears. Far too often I have seen the news reports with schoolmates of someone who has died on the road, and the flowers and wreaths placed on the Stobie pole or marker at the side of the road. Far too often on country roads you see white crosses and flowers marking the spot where people have lost a loved one or loved ones.

It is so sad that people have thrown their lives away by making poor decisions. Sometimes it happens because people get together and there is peer group pressure—we were all young once—and they think it is a bit of a laugh to get out there and drive fast. However when the results are as stark as maiming or even death it is very tragic for communities.

I am the father of a couple of young boys, and they have a few years to go before they will be able to drive on the road as licensed drivers, but the more we can do to keep our people alive the better. Mind you, my sons have the benefit of learning to drive at an early age on the farm. My eldest is only eight, but he has his own little motorbike and he roars around, and they sit on your lap steering down the tracks or around the paddocks.

Mr Venning: He's not hooning, is he?

Mr PEDERICK: He is not hooning at all; he is very careful. It will be the second son that I will have to watch. Be that as it may, this is very serious legislation, even if it says only one life—although I think it will save a lot more—or save some of the maiming and destruction that occurs on our roads. The end result of a lot of these accidents is that families get torn apart; parents fall apart because of the loss of their young ones. I commend the bill, and I look forward to its speedy passage through the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:29): I was not going to speak, but I will say just a few words in relation to this bill, because the opposition does support it. Listening to the member for Hammond I am reminded of the speeches I have made in this house in relation to the terrible deaths of young people in the Barossa Valley, and it would be remiss of me if I did not raise that here.

There has been a very tragic series of events, much of which could have been avoided, and a lot of it has been related to driver attitude. I do not believe that any of these young people, particularly the lads, are bad people, but they get behind the wheel of a vehicle—often not an appropriate vehicle for these lads to drive—and do some foolish things. What was particularly tragic was that the last lad we buried had actually done the eulogy for one of the other lads five or six days earlier.

That really sent a message, it really sent the horrors right through the whole community, and it spurred people to action. We had meetings, the police had forums, the schools had educational programs, because it really tore the heart out of the community. In this instance, the road conditions were partly to blame, but these young lads drive these cars inattentively and are also hoon driving. The problem is the mentality of 'It can't happen to me.'

We were all young once—I know the member for Hammond was—and I can say that I was the proud owner of an EH Holden. When my father was away we pulled the exhaust pipe off and put on a two inch Lukey system, and at about 11 o'clock at night we were going up and down the main street of Crystal Brook. I confess that, after all these years. If police had been around the place, I probably would have been booked for excessive noise and everything else. Luckily, in those days, the cars were not fast enough and there was not the traffic around, and the danger was not so great.

Mr Pederick: What did you have, a 149?

Mr VENNING: No, it was a 179. It was a powerful machine. I was very proud of it, I can tell the member. It was a Hydramatic and, when you put the gear down, it burbled beautifully as it changed through the gears. I was very proud of that car. As I look back, I think I should have kept it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: No, luckily, I did not have any offences at all. It is only in my recent history that I have had this difficulty. I note in today's paper the huge increase in speeding fines, and I believe the government is revenue raising—the drop in speed limits has raised a huge amount of money for the government.

I come back to this driving problem. We must do anything we can to send a message to people, particularly the lads who have a careless moment. They know if they get caught for hoon driving there are things that can happen. Their cars can be clamped and, for the worst offence, they can have their car crunched. I think that is a little over the top, personally. I believe the car should be confiscated, but to see it crunched is a total waste.

I believe an education process should be implemented through the schools, and I know the schools in the Barossa are doing that. It is not sensible for young lads to buy a two-door V8 imported from Japan as their first vehicle. A lot of the vehicles that are imported are pretty cheap because they have done 50,000 kilometres in Japan. These cars are extremely powerful and the bodies extremely light. They barely pass Australian standards—apparently they do, but only just. The father of one of the lads who was killed was going through the reasons that this happened and said he did own that car. Everyone said the lad was not stupid with it and that it was the car that killed him. I do not think the family would mind my saying that when he was found he had a CD in his hand and he had been changing the CD.

This is the sort of thing we should educate kids about. The story is, 'It can't happen to me,' and I suppose I was the same. We all say it. Well, it does happen to us. So, we should do anything we can to send the message, even if it is by these draconian methods of clamping and crushing cars. If it sends a message, it is worthwhile, and we in the opposition support it. I hope it works.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:33): I will not hold up the house for long. In relation to the crushing of vehicles, the opposition supports this particular—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You say that, but you have never sat down short of 20 minutes, so we are ready.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The longer the Attorney interrupts, of course, the longer the speech goes. In fact, at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, he has spoken longer during my contribution than I have.

I only want to deal with the aspect of the crushing of cars. It is my view that, while the power to crush should be there, that should be the absolute last resort. I think if you are taking someone's asset away from them (which is already allowed in the act and this is extending the offences it relates to), it should be put to some community good. I think that crushing should be the last resort and, rather, we should sell them to charity. We could gift them to Meals on Wheels, the Royal District Nursing Society or other organisations that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, the high-powered ones can be scaled down and reformed.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Let me introduce you to the Mitsubishi Colt with a V8 engine lowered into it!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, that is fine. The Attorney says a Mitsubishi Colt with a V8 engine. Give that to a school to strip down to teach the kids about how cars work. A car club at the school I went to did exactly that; they stripped down and rebuilt the same car for decades. You can give it to schools; you can take it to the prisons to teach prisoners skills about mechanics and dent knocking and a whole range of things. I think that crushing should be minimal and should not be used just for the media stunt that it will be paraded as. I think that, if you are going to take someone's asset off them, ultimately the government should put it to some community good.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:35): I might use my whole 20 minutes: I have a lot of thoughts on this matter. This is an interesting subject, and this parliament spends a lot of its time debating changes to the relevant statutes trying to control the carnage on our roads. I have been wondering for some time whether we are getting it right, and I suspect that we are not. The member for Schubert made the point (as have I think some others) that we are certainly collecting a lot more revenue. The revenue collected from road traffic fines has increased substantially in the term of this government. I am not too sure—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It doesn't pay for even a fraction of the cost of the police.

Mr WILLIAMS: No; I am not suggesting it does. Are you suggesting that is what it should do?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No. I am just telling you—

Mr WILLIAMS: I never suggested that it did. I never suggested that the revenue derived from traffic fines was designed to pay for the police. I always thought it was designed to have a deterrent effect.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is.

Mr WILLIAMS: What on earth has that got to do with paying for the police? The Attorney has probably had an opportunity to speak on this bill and will have a further opportunity to speak on it, and we would all be a lot better off if he refrained from interfering in the debate and the contribution of other members and let the house get on with its business instead of making inane comments.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The revenue raising claim is nonsense.

Mr WILLIAMS: The revenue raising claim is not nonsense, as the Attorney well knows, and many members of the Labor Party when in opposition made the exact same claim.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not me: I'm a cyclist.

Mr WILLIAMS: Many have. I can say for a fact—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —because the police have told me themselves (and I have made the point before), that when you drive on the road between Stirling and the Victorian border down the Dukes Highway, the last 17 kilometres of the road from Bordertown to the border has a speed limit of 100 km/h. The rest of the road has a speed limit of 110 km/h. The last 17 kilometres of the road has been completely rebuilt in recent years at a cost to the commonwealth government of $15 million. It is the best piece of road between the Victorian border and Stirling but it has a lower speed limit and is policed more heavily than any other section of the road—and the Attorney-General will try to convince me that there is not an aspect of revenue raising with regard to the laws that he and his government bring before this place. I am not convinced, and therein lies the reason why I am contributing to this debate.

Mr Kenyon: No; you just can't help yourself.

Mr WILLIAMS: No; I can help myself, actually—unlike the Attorney, who makes a habit of spending most private members' time here interfering and interjecting the whole way through because he can't help himself. I agree with the comments that were just made by the member for Davenport and, in my opinion, we run the risk of having a different penalty set for the same offence because of the different values of the various cars that people drive.

So, we have driver A who commits an offence driving what can only be described as a bomb that he has probably picked up for $1,000. He commits the offence and potentially crashes his car. He will go before the court and possibly lose points or lose his licence, possibly be fined and possibly have his car crushed. That will have a certain impact on him. Driver B commits exactly the same offence but in a much more valuable car. He goes before the court and gets a loss of licence (not dissimilar to driver A), gets a fine (not dissimilar to driver A), but with the potential to have a much more valuable vehicle crushed. It seems inequitable to me to suggest that this is the way to go forward.

I have real concerns about attitudes to driver behaviour. The member for Schubert keeps saying that we need education in our schools, but I am yet to be convinced of the value of some of these education programs. If education worked and overcame the desire of particularly young people to do silly things, I think we would have seen the cessation of smoking many years ago. The very fact that young people still take up smoking in significant numbers suggests to me that education does not overcome their inner thoughts which, as I think the member for Schubert also said, suggest to them that they are bulletproof—therein lies part of the problem, I believe.

There is always public discussion about increasing the driving age. I think even more legislation is about to come before us to make it more onerous for young people to get a driver's licence. I am sure that, in controlled situations, lowering the age where people can get entry into driving might be better, starting people driving at a much earlier age.

I think the member for Hammond made a comment about his young sons riding around on a motorbike on his farm—including an eight year old. They are not bad kids, either; nothing like their father—they are very fortunate with their mother.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I take all that back as I would be misleading the house. I ensured that all of my children learnt to drive at the age of 10. By and large, they have been pretty responsible drivers. I am not sure whether it is just—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, I am not too sure. I think my children were very fortunate to have the opportunity to grow up on a farm where they could learn to drive at a very early age. One thing I do know is that as they graduated to receiving their driver's licences and went out with their young friends in their late teens and early 20s, they never felt that they had to prove anything.

Part of the problem, I think, is that as a parliament and as a society we have put so much emphasis on this that young people think that there is something to be proven out there. We have to recognise that, as a state, we worship motor sport. We put a lot of state resources into supporting motor sport.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: For a good return.

Mr WILLIAMS: For a very good return. However, I think we should question whether there is some impact on the mental state of young people. I was at the Clipsal 500 some years ago and saw a demonstration of motorbike—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are always there in the state suite.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I am not always there in the state suite. I have not been in the state suite for probably five years.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: But you have been there.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have been, on several occasions in the time that I have been a member but I am certainly not always in the state suite. As I said, I doubt whether I have been there for five years, for the Attorney's information. In the time that the Attorney has been in government, in the past seven years, I think I have been twice, possibly once. I will say twice just to be sure.

Mr Kenyon: I can check for you, if you like.

Mr WILLIAMS: You can check and, if I am wrong, I will apologise. It is not something that I make a habit of going to. But I have been there and I have seen V8 utes being raced, doing ringies and making a lot of smoke. I have seen motorbikes doing the same thing.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; and the young people see this and they do cheer wildly, yet we say to them, 'Don't do this at home.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We say a lot of that: 'Don't do this at home.'

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. We do say a lot of, 'Don't do this at home.' I am just making the point that I happen to think that is a very big ask. Kids do learn by watching their elders and kids do take note of what other people do. Thousands of us watch the Clipsal and watch the V8 utes doing ringies on the tarmac. I am not surprised that a couple of kids actually say, 'Gee, I wouldn't mind having a go at doing that at home or down the street.' I am not too sure that that is not what happens in the back of the mind of at least a few young people in South Australia. I think we might be accused of being a little hypocritical in some of the legislation we bring before this place.

I think just about everyone in our society has been touched by road trauma. There are not too many families who have escaped either having family members or very close friends seriously injured or even worse. It is something which pervades our society. I know it is something which I have been close to over the years. I know that it is a terrible experience for families. I just question some of the things that we do and claim that we will make a huge difference, I really do.

I certainly will take the opportunity yet again to reiterate that the policing effort put into those stretches of our highways where the road speed drops from 110 to 100 proves that there is a large element of revenue raising, and I think that in itself is counterproductive. When the community loses faith that the measures we are taking are designed purely with road safety in mind, I think we begin to lose the battle, and that is why I have argued and will continue to argue the point that revenue raising from traffic offences does not help the road trauma that we are trying to address.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There shouldn't be any fines.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, there shouldn't be any fines, Attorney. When you are driving along the Princes Highway—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Hang on, you shouldn't have fines for traffic offences?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I never said that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Well, what did you say?

Mr WILLIAMS: I will tell you what I am saying. You have been chatting away and you come in after I finish making a point and ask, 'What am I saying?' So, you are asking me to repeat it all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I never said that at all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Then, what did you say?

Mr WILLIAMS: I said that it is my belief that, when it becomes obvious that the way in which we police traffic offences is more about revenue raising than ameliorating the road toll, the community loses faith, and when you do that, you start to lose the battle to win the heart and mind of the people.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There shouldn't be fines for what?

Mr WILLIAMS: I said—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You said there shouldn't be fines.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, that is not what I said at all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I think we will look at Hansard.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, you go back and read the Hansard and you will understand. You, indeed, Attorney, sought to put words into my mouth.

Mr Kenyon: You said that twice.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I was repeating what he had said. For the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not say and I certainly did not mean that there should not be fines for road traffic offences.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I think it should not be made obvious, and I think it is obvious that many of the fines collected are more about raising revenue than they are about ameliorating loss of life on our roads.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It has nothing to do with the cost of the agency, minister. The reality is that, when you drive through my electorate along the Princes Highway, you get to Meningie. You have driven all the way to Meningie at 100. From Meningie to Salt Creek—that is 60 kilometres—the speed limit drops to 100 km/h. From Salt Creek to Kingston, the speed limit goes up again to 110 km/h. The reality is that the quality of the road in that 60 kilometre section is no worse than the other parts of the road, but it is policed more heavily—that is what the police officers tell me—and people are being fined because they inadvertently are driving on a road where the speed limit changes. That sort of behaviour by a government—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I am making the point, Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Excuse me, minister, that did not happen under our government. For the minister's information, it occurred under minister Michael Wright, as transport minister, when he lowered the speed limit between all of the country towns down along the Victorian border. So, when you drive from Mount Gambier to Casterton, it is 100 km/h. When you drive from Penola to Casterton, between Penola and the border it is 100 km/h.

As I pointed out earlier, when you drive from Bordertown to the border, the speed limit is 100 km/h. It has nothing to do with the state of the road, as I pointed out earlier. The best piece of the Dukes Highway, the best piece of that road between the Victorian border and Stirling is that piece between Bordertown and the Victorian border, but it has the lowest speed limit on it—and it is heavily policed. That is the point I am making. In my opinion, it is counterproductive—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You won't be saying that when you are over here.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think I will be, and it won't be long and I will be over there. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have made my point. I would not have taken 16 minutes if was not for the Attorney; I would have taken about six minutes. I apologise for holding up the house for much longer than I intended, but I did want to make a couple of points, and I think I have made them, with no thanks to the Attorney.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 3—

After line 8—Insert:

(1) Section 5(5)—Delete 'A motor' and substitute:

Except as provided in section 16(3), a motor

After line 8—Insert:

(5) Section 5(6)(b)—Delete 'prescribed' and substitute:

clamping or impounding

In the second reading, I noticed that the measures in this bill represented an initial and immediate response by the government to the increase in prominence in hoon and dangerous driving by some sections of the public. Since the second reading, the government has filed more amendments to the bill. These amendments continue to build on the initial measures that combat hoon driving.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to permit temporary clamping by the relevant authority, namely, SAPOL, on a public road or other area of a kind described by regulation. It is consequential on the amendments to section 16(3) of the parent act. SAPOL has advised that police resources are being inefficiently used when patrol members who seize a vehicle under the authority of the act are required to wait by the roadside until a tow truck arrives.

SAPOL further advises that patrol members have, on occasions, waited with a seized vehicle for two or three hours for this to occur. Once clamped on the roadside a tow truck will then be requested to attend the scene and remove the vehicle to a designated SAPOL impounding yard. This obviates the need for SAPOL officers to wait alongside a vehicle seized on a public road for the tow truck to arrive to take it away.

The general prohibition of clamping on public roads or other areas of a kind prescribed by a regulation will remain under section 16(3) of the act but this will make an exception. The practical effect of the amendment to section 16(3) will be to permit SAPOL officers to affix clamps temporarily—or any other locking device—to a motor vehicle on a public road or in any other place to secure the vehicle until it can be seized or moved a short time later.

Mr HANNA: I also have an amendment to clause 4. Shall I speak to that now?

The CHAIR: We have passed clause 4. Clause 5 is under consideration now.

Mr HANNA: At what point shall I move that clause 4 be recommitted?

The CHAIR: At the end of the consideration of the bill in committee you can seek to have the matter recommitted. Are there any matters on amendments Nos 1 and 2?

Mr HANNA: It may sound old-fashioned but the basic principle underlying this measure relates to the ability of the police to take the car off someone and, of course, clamp it. I may sound old-fashioned but I still think that the courts are the appropriate agency to impose punishment on our citizens when they do something wrong. I am certainly not against punishment, but I do think it should be the subject of a court order.

I realise that the contrary argument is that this is merely some kind of confiscation, in the same way as police might confiscate a weapon if it were used in an assault. However, the way that this is developing, this legislation is increasingly being used as a method of punishment, and I maintain that it is not the best way to make laws to have the police able to punish people before they have a right to redress in court.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am glad that the member for Mitchell said that. When we first introduced the hoon driving laws back in, I think, 2003 or 2004, he was the only member of this house to oppose them. He opposed them in the house; he spoke against them. I have a transcript of his appearing on the Matthew Abraham and David Bevan program speaking against the law that I introduced.

I certainly intend to circulate his remarks to people in Sheidow Park, Trott Park, Marion, Mitchell Park and other areas of the state district of Mitchell, because it is very important that they know that the one member of the House of Assembly who is opposed to our measures against hoon driving is the member for Mitchell.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT