Page 913 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 25 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The amendment amplifies the comments I made earlier about prima facie evidence. It sets out, in fairly succinct terms, the circumstances and the rights that a citizen facing a prosecution of this kind would enjoy. I think that it makes it clear beyond any doubt that a person facing prosecution can call the registrar or an analyst, as the case requires, to the witness box and can cross-examine him or her on the evidence that he or she has put forward. In all the circumstances, I think it only provides for a better circumstance where the information that has been contested in the court can be properly brought to light, properly argued over and properly adjudicated on by the court. I think anything less than that is a dangerous dereliction of our duty to people who face prosecutions of this kind.
MR WHALAN (Minister for Industry, Employment and Education) (9.44): Mr Speaker, the Government opposes this amendment. I refer the members of Assembly to subclauses 77(1) and 77(2). These subclauses provide that the certificate, in the first case signed by the registrar, and in the second case signed by an analyst, shall be evidence of the matters that are contained within the certificate. So it is a categoric statement that the certificate is the evidence that is contained within the certificate.
Now to proceed with this particular provision negates the provisions of subclauses 77(1) and 77(2). We would submit that it removes the discretion of the magistrate or the judge in relation to the way in which he wishes the case to proceed. It might even be suggested that it presumes that the analyst and the registrar may not be appropriately skilled, so we would urge that the amendment be rejected.
MR COLLAERY (9.45): It is breathtaking, Mr Speaker, to hear the Deputy Chief Minister talk about removing discretions and liberties, having regard to debate earlier in the chamber. The Rally supports the amendment proposed by Mr Humphries. The Rally takes the view that that amendment cures and achieves what Mr Humphries was seeking with his earlier amendments because the power to cross-examine is unlimited in amplitude and of course the cross-examining attorney can ask the registrar what he or she likes about how the registrar is discharging his or her duties, the accuracy of certificates, and the like. So, Mr Speaker, the provision is only fair. It gives you the chance to have before you in the box to be cross-examined your accuser. It is quite fundamental and it is a proper amendment, in the Rally's view.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 to 81, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Proposed new clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .