Page 1719 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
name through the mud. Now he does not matter because she is no longer on his side. I think, Mr Speaker, that this matter deserves no more time of this Assembly. We should proceed as quickly as possible to a vote and get over this stupid incident.
MRS GRASSBY (8.37): Mr Speaker, I believe that the Labor Party has established today the seriousness of Mr Duby's offence. It is unfortunate that Mr Duby has not had the intestinal fortitude to resign. This is not a joking matter, and it is not a laughing matter. This is something that we and the community take very, very seriously.
The Liberal Government obviously believes that its survival is more important than the standards of ministerial behaviour that it sets for the community. This is unfortunate, not just for the Alliance Government but also for the whole Assembly. It is unfortunate for self-government in the ACT.
This Minister was elected on the basis of making a laughing-stock of self-government. Through his own actions and his failure to resign, he has managed to ensure that self-government will continue to be held in contempt, despite the best efforts of many people in this Assembly to raise its profile and its standards. Mr Duby is not capable of raising his standards.
Magistrates and police in this Territory are constantly striving to impress on the Canberra community the seriousness of alcohol related driving offences. For the Attorney-General, Mr Collaery, our first law officer, to claim that refusing a breath test was an indiscretion, not a criminal offence, undermines their efforts. To make such a statement reflects poorly on Mr Collaery's understanding of the law.
Refusing a breath test can carry a maximum penalty of $1,000 and six months' imprisonment, or where there has been a previous conviction for a drink-driving offence, as in Mr Duby's case, a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment is available. It may be that the community is reluctant to accept drink-driving as a serious criminal offence. However, in the eyes of the law it is a criminal offence.
It is improper for a Government Minister to break the law in regard to drink-driving and maintain responsibility for transport and road safety. It is outrageous for that same Minister to be responsible for negotiating the changes to drink-driving limits. It is absurd to suggest, as Mr Humphries did in his speech, that Mr Duby's offences can be equated with minor traffic offences. Minor on-the-spot parking or speeding tickets in no way compare with the offences for which Mr Duby was convicted, which carry very substantial fines and which may involve imprisonment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .