Page 2962 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
With this new machinery, maybe we will be able to stop a lot more people drinking and driving and thus causing accidents. The police will be able to carry out their job a lot more efficiently. I hope that when the Canberra Times writes this up they will be warning people that the police will be a lot more efficient and therefore they should be a lot more careful about drinking and driving. As we all know, some of the worst accidents on the road have been caused by people who have been intoxicated and who have got behind the wheel of a car. Unfortunately, on many occasions, they have taken not their own lives but the lives of innocent people on the road. I think it is a very important Bill, and I am glad to see that it is coming into force. We stayed back until this hour to make sure that it does.
MR STEVENSON (6.07): It is commendable that better equipment is being introduced for the police force. When I was a member the equipment was not easy to operate. In fact, we had to have a specialist with the breathalyser unit come to the station, and this could take hours. You sit around and wait, because you have to be there. This is not a good use of police time. Also, the immediate readout is a benefit. I note that Mr Moore mentioned that his reading was .02. I presume that that is the only time he has ever had a reading on - - -
Mr De Domenico: No, it is the only time he has had a scotch, I think.
MR STEVENSON: He has never been picked up on a pushbike.
Mr Moore: That is right. That is the only time I have ever shown up on a breathalyser.
MR STEVENSON: Well done. There was an interesting case recently. A gentleman was tested and gave a reading eight times the allowable limit. The fascinating thing was that he was not dead. Perhaps we should educate children to understand that alcohol can kill you on the spot. A bottle of whisky, and it may be all over for you.
It has been said that the Bill is also removing sexist language from the Act. Well, it does not do that. As an example, in paragraph 17(c)(c) of the schedule it says, "Omit 'him', substitute 'the person'". That is not removing sexist language. After all, the son is the male progeny of a parent. So, if you use the word "person" that is upsetting to a lot of people; you should use "perdaughter", although that may upset some people too. When we talk about sexist language, why do we not simply look at the dictionary if we want to understand definitions? My 2,500-page pocket New Twentieth Century Dictionary says, "he - an individual described by a following relative clause, or by an equivalent of a relative clause, the person indefinitely". It even includes relatives. So, the term is most valuable. We do not need to change the meanings of words. The fact that "person" should be called "perdaughter" if we go along with this nonsense highlights the point. The word "he" means both he and she, in exactly the same way as "man" means the same thing as "mankind". It refers to all of us and not just some of us.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (6.10), in reply: I thank members for their support for the Bill. I particularly thank members for their indulgence in dealing with the Bill this afternoon. This matter has been brought on reasonably swiftly and members have been gracious in dealing with it well beyond the time when we may have expected to have gone home.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .