Page 1711 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
call for it. I mentioned it publicly, I mentioned it to members of the media, but they were not interested in doing it, and you can verify that if you like. But the point is that he should have resigned, and it was for a much lesser offence than Mr Duby's. Senator Tate did not commit a criminal offence.
I had reason to call Mr Collaery's Law Office the other day to ask a question about criminal offence and where the term comes from. I was asking about decriminalisation of marijuana so that I could understand what is meant by the term "decriminalisation". It was very carefully explained to me by one of his lawyers. Just a short while ago he said, "Just ask any lawyer". I asked a lawyer and got a very different opinion from the one that this supposed practising lawyer gave. That was that the term "decriminalisation" is, if anything, a journalist-style term; it is not one that is used in the law because any offence that carries a criminal penalty - - -
Mr Collaery: What has this got to do with it?
MR MOORE: This is what your Law Office told me - any offence that carries a penalty like that is, in that perspective, a criminal offence. So here we have another one of Mr Collaery's little dance arounds - a shade this way, a shade that way. Mr Duby's offence was a criminal offence. There is no debate about it. There are no two ways about it. It is a criminal offence because it carries with it that sort of punishment that makes it a criminal offence. There is no distinction between it and the others.
So this sort of farce that Mr Collaery is presenting is absolutely ridiculous and indicates why he was able to win so few cases when he was practising. It is an absolute farce. Using 1957 legislation is absolutely ridiculous. He went on to talk about a guilty state of mind and so forth. Mr Humphries' notion was: "Have you committed a speeding offence? Is that a criminal offence?". This is very different. Mr Duby refused to obey the instruction of the police officer to take a breath test. A similar situation in terms of a speeding offence would be if you refused to pull over when you were instructed to do so after you had been speeding. That is another story.
Let us get back to exceeding 0.08 because this is a particularly serious matter. It is considered to be very serious by the community, and it is being considered more and more as a serious matter - not exceeding 0.08 on its own, but exceeding that and then driving. That is a significant thing, and that is what it is about - a combination of drink-driving - - -
Mr Duby: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I object most strongly. Who did that, Mr Moore? Answer the question, Mr Moore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .