Page 2960 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
seek assurances from the police that this will not occur. The changes in the evidentiary provisions by accepting print-out readings from an approved breathalyser as evidence in court will increase the success rate of prosecutions and act as a strong deterrent for would-be offenders. It also should save a lot of time in the courts.
Even though we are prepared to accommodate the Minister in this instance, we would remind him to take notice that normally we will require a longer period to scrutinise such Bills. We want sufficient time to consult with organisations which may be affected by such Bills. Madam Speaker, as I indicated before, the Liberal Party supports the Bill.
MS SZUTY (6.00): Madam Speaker, the Bill before us seeks to make some adjustments to the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 to streamline the taking of breath tests by police and to allow the use of the print-out from the latest machines in use as part of the evidence presented to court. I took the opportunity this week, as Mr Westende outlined, to visit the City Police Station to see the new units being demonstrated. What impressed me is the fact that, immediately a breath analysis is completed, one of the important parts of the documentation necessary to take the matter to court is also completed. People who offend against the drink-driving laws are able to see immediately the evidence that will be brought against them. This is extremely important, as it fulfils two key criteria. The certificate produced at the time the alleged offence is detected will reduce the need to complete onerous paperwork and thereby frees the time of the police to do more community policing and to conduct more breath tests. Because it is produced by the machine that takes the reading and is available straightaway, there is less likelihood of claims of interference or incorrect reporting of the results of the breath test.
In addition, the legislation allows for people brought to the station for breath tests to be kept and tested in the one area, which must certainly make things easier for police during major campaigns against drink-driving. In the past a police officer had to find a separate room in the station to allow the test to be done in private. As the members of the public being subjected to such tests are only asked to provide a breath sample by blowing into the analyser, it does not appear too harsh an invasion of privacy, particularly when the prospect is that with the simplification of the system they will be able to leave the station much sooner than under the old arrangements. While there may be some members of the community upset at the idea of providing a breath sample in front of other people, it is no more than is already asked when a motorist is pulled up by police on the roadside during drink-driving campaigns.
The Bill before us today also seeks to remove the onerous provision that the Minister must approve each breath testing unit. After the passing of this Bill, units will be approved by notification in the Gazette showing the type of unit that has been approved for use in the Territory. This to me seems a welcome simplification. The police are the professionals in this area and would have to convince the Minister that a particular unit had some advantage over existing equipment before they would receive funding for the purchase. It seems less than commonsense to then have to seek separate approval for each unit from the same Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .