Page 1591 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
section 20 of the Act implicitly assumes that the blood sample was taken from a conscious person with his or her active consent.
The Bill creates an offence where a blood sample is taken from an unconscious driver and the ensuing analysis determines that the blood alcohol concentration is equal to or more than the prescribed limit. Revised procedures for the taking and analysing of blood samples will better safeguard the integrity of samples and minimise the possibility of unauthorised handling. The driver from whom the required two samples were taken will be given one as a control sample. If the driver was unconscious at the time the blood was taken, the analyst is required to keep the control sample for collection later. If the driver wishes, he or she may have that sample independently analysed.
A new provision will limit the use of certificate evidence, attained under the Act, in civil proceedings which relate to an insurance contract. The Bill also makes several other formal amendments to ensure that the Act conforms with current drafting conventions. None of these formal amendments change the substantive law. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned.
OPTOMETRISTS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
MR BERRY (Minister for Community Services and Health) (10.50): I present the Optometrists (Amendment) Bill. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The Bill is about the removal of unnecessary business regulations. I do not think that anyone in this house would want to see regulations perpetuated that forced a business into unfair competition with others in a similar field.
Three subsections of the Optometrists Act 1986 prohibit the advertising, canvassing and sanctioning of advertising of optometric services. These subsections state that it is unprofessional to advertise. The Act in its original form did not include these subsections. They were introduced in 1986 when legislation was effected by the Federal Parliament. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances expressed concern that the provisions were too vague. It also considered that the provisions would unjustly cover an employee of an optometrist who would not necessarily have any knowledge of the advertising.
Discussions were held between the various interested bodies, including the ACT Optometrists Board, to ascertain if it were possible to modify the strict regulatory nature
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .