Page 2731 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
inquiry is made of the insured. That could be one area, particularly the compulsory third-party insurance area, given that the nominal defendant has to pay out substantial sums of money, and this Territory will be doing that after 1 July next year, in which we need to look very carefully at whether we are going to allow some of these people on the roads when they have substantial driving records and are, in effect, going to cost us, not only in terms of the agony of injuries but also in terms of money.
So, Mr Speaker, judged against all those issues, we believe that the answer that Mr Stefaniak nobly sought out of this legislation is being sought in the wrong area; it lies elsewhere with this Assembly in future enactments and in liaison with the insurance industry to give its support in weeding out the constant traffic offenders and other parties who exploit the insurance situation.
MS FOLLETT (Attorney-General) (4.01): I very much welcome the expressions of support for this legislation from the Assembly. As members know, its intention is to promote road safety, and that is something that we would most certainly all support. But it is a fact that, whilst the principal Act authorises blood samples to be taken from an unconscious person who is suspected of having driven while under the influence of alcohol, there have been cases in which prosecutions have failed, in which the blood was taken from an unconscious driver even though analysis showed that that person's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the prescribed limit. I think that is a matter that is worthy of being addressed and one to which obviously members in the Assembly have given some very careful thought.
Mr Stefaniak's proposal is again a matter that, I believe, has been the subject of quite a deal of consultation and debate. It has been addressed with great eloquence by my colleague Mr Duby. I could not have put the arguments better myself, Mr Speaker, and I will not because I think he has well and truly traversed them all. The crux of the matter is that insurance companies should not have the benefit of evidence that has been compulsorily obtained through the state's coercive powers for the legislatively defined and limited purposes of the state. As the legislation currently stands, it means that private litigants have to rely on their own resources, as they would have to do if the principal Act did not exist.
As I said, I think Mr Duby has put all of those arguments and, in particular, has drawn attention to the similar provisions which exist in other States - in virtually all States, except Queensland and Western Australia.
So I welcome the support of the Assembly. I think that this is a very positive step that we are taking towards road safety and towards the implementation of our intentions and, indeed, our legislation in respect of road safety.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .