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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 477 ..

MR HUMPHRIES

weeks, of this amendment being in operation, saying, "We are ending up having to come into court all the time to prove that the person was breath tested within two hours", or "People are being acquitted because the court has not got evidence before it of the taking of a sample within two hours".

I am all in favour of making the police's job easier. I am not sure that this proposal actually does that. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that the homework has not been done on this legislation before its being brought forward for debate here today. That is a warning that I put to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (11.08): The Greens will not be supporting this piece of legislation. I have listened to the arguments today and I have done research before. Mr Humphries has just outlined very clearly the concerns with this legislation. I agree with him that it is not normally the inclination of the Government not to want to dispense with red tape if it is not necessary. I have had arguments with them about how much red tape they want to dispense with. I think they have put a very clear argument at this point about why this procedure is necessary. I would also agree that Mr Humphries is not one who is nervous about trying to assist the police. This Government obviously has a strong commitment to assisting them in their work. I did not hear Mr Rugendyke address the concerns that Mr Humphries has raised.

I think that this issue is quite serious because we do have a commitment in this place to trying to streamline processes for the police, which this Bill was about but which it is quite obvious could have the opposite effect. Not only that, we have a commitment in this place, all of us, to reducing drink-driving on our roads. It seems to me that there is a possibility that it could even have a negative impact on that, because of the legal points that could be raised if the requirement for a section 10A certificate were removed. I am not going to support the Bill. I urge the members of this place who were going to support it to reconsider their position, having listened to these arguments. I know that it is not always easy to do that when you have put a position, but it is obviously going to be quite a worry if this Bill gets up.

MR OSBORNE (11.11): I, too, have some concerns about this legislation. Perhaps the best option would be for me to adjourn the debate. However, I wish to say a few words after I do that. I will seek leave to speak. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

I am happy to have it brought on later today, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

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