Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 2584 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

The information on the statement of the informant/operator report contains the same information as the section 10A certificate and, in fact, provides greater detail. Mr Speaker, no-one is disadvantaged with the repeal of this section. All protections necessary for the driver are related to the process at the police station when more scientific testing takes place. Further, the courts will not proceed to a conviction unless the information compiled at the police station is complete.

I considered initially that the section 10A certificate was prima facie evidence that there had been a breach of the Act - that is, that the driver had exceeded the prescribed alcohol limit. The provision of the certificate to the driver was evidence and written proof of suspicion by the officer sufficient to require the driver to attend the police station. In essence, it was protection for the driver against wrongful detention and protection for the officer against vexatious complaint.

Mr Speaker, I was convinced that this was not necessary when realising that no other suspected criminal activity, requiring the suspect to be taken for questioning or further testing, requires written evidence of police suspicion. Murder or robbery suspects other than those arrested by warrant are not given a piece of paper before being taken into custody.

Some of the advantages if this section is repealed are: The removal of superfluous paperwork; a reduction in unnecessary expenditure on stationery; a saving of about 47 hours of police time per annum; an accent on drivers' rights protection on the process at the station, not at the roadside; and, lastly, removal of unnecessary bureaucracy. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Kaine) adjourned.

MR RUGENDYKE (10.37): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1998.

Leave granted.

MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Speaker, I present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1998.

Title read by Clerk.

MR RUGENDYKE: I move:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1998. Firstly, I would like to apologise to the Assembly for not having prepared an explanatory memorandum as yet. The Bill turned up only a short time ago. I will present the explanatory memorandum as soon as possible.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .