Page 2728 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be changing the status quo in relation to the current situation in the ACT.
When some people from the insurance industry saw us, they put forward their case in relation to their problems with clause 9. The representative from NRMA, the largest insurer in Canberra, indicated that it is not the case that because someone is over 0.08 he or she will always not be able to claim on a contract of insurance, because the insurance contract provides for not covering a person who is incapable of driving a motor vehicle because of the amount of alcohol that has been consumed, when a person is so affected by liquor that he or she is incapable of properly driving a motor vehicle.
It is very similar to section 24 of the Act, which is the driving under the influence section. This means that a person may well have a blood alcohol reading of 0.1 but may be only slightly affected. In the circumstances, that person would be covered by the insurance contract because he or she would fall within the criteria. It would be a lot harder, I think, for a person with a reading of 0.2 or 0.3 to fall into that category. If there is no other evidence, the documentary evidence of the certificate of the blood alcohol reading becomes very, very important, and indeed it might be the only evidence that can be used.
It is very important for us, as legislators, to discourage drink-driving. The laws of the other States and the Territory in relation to drink-driving are fairly severe. They are certainly not as severe as in other parts of the world. I think, if you were picked up in Scandinavia with any alcohol at all in your system, you would automatically be sentenced to a gaol term. We have nothing like that here. But drink-driving is certainly frowned upon by legislators Australia-wide, and I think it behoves this Assembly to ensure that we do nothing that might be seen as condoning it or making it any easier on the irresponsible drink-drivers.
Insurance premiums may also rise if we do anything which could be construed as condoning drink-driving. Perhaps one of the most substantial penalties a drink-driver faces, especially if there is a car accident, is the fact that the insurance company will not pay up for the damage to the car. That involves a very severe financial penalty and a very real deterrent. Accordingly, we do not think clause 9, as it is drafted, should be passed by this Assembly. I think the Government needs to do a lot more work in relation to this area in consultation with the insurance companies and its State counterparts.
MR DUBY (3.53): Mr Stefaniak seeks to delete clause 9 from this Bill, for various reasons which he has outlined. I, for one, do not agree with him. Clause 9 inserts proposed new section 41A into the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Act of 1977, the principal Act. This proposed new section 41A would have the effect of limiting the use of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .