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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 478 ..

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, when I was approached initially by the Australian Federal Police Association and Mr Hargreaves about this legislation, I was more than happy to support it. Like the Government, I have demonstrated more times than Ms Tucker cares to remember that I am more than supportive of the police in trying to make their job a little bit easier, having spent seven years - - -

Mr Rugendyke: Only as a detective.

MR OSBORNE: Six years as a detective, Mr Speaker. I must admit, I did not lock up many old drunks; I was too busy doing important police work.

Mr Rugendyke: Rubbish!

MR OSBORNE: That is all they would let Mr Rugendyke do, Mr Speaker. Seriously though, the one thing that I recall from my policing days, especially in relation to drink-driving offences, was the issue of testing the driver within the two-hour timeframe. Obviously, it was the most important thing. In New South Wales we had a roving breath analysis operator. You would do the roadside test and then within two hours you needed to have somebody meet you at a police station with their machinery. Back in those days individual police stations did not have their own breath analysis unit, so we would get on the police radio and attempt to locate whoever was doing the rounds. I can recall a number of occasions where we would be anxiously looking at the clock because the breath analysis operator would be tied up at another station. Thankfully, at all times they made it within the two-hour timeframe.

My concern about this piece of legislation, if we pass it, is how the courts accept the evidence of the test being done within the two-hour timeframe. I would have enjoyed it during my time in the police force if, when I was required to go to court, the magistrate would just accept what I had written on a piece of paper, without having to go and stand up and defend it. I must admit that I have concerns that police will be required to attend court every time there is a matter in relation to a drink-driving offence before the magistrate. I intend to speak with the association shortly, Mr Speaker, to make sure that they are very clear on the potential of this legislation for their members. If they are still happy to go ahead with it, with the risk of clogging up the courts and taking police off the road, I will consider supporting it.

But there is a danger in passing this legislation if it is going to result in police being taken off the road to go and give evidence about breath analysis tests being done within that two-hour timeframe. As I said, I was more than happy to support the legislation, but I do think that I need to clear it with the police association that they understand that passing this legislation has the potential of causing a loss of time through being required to attend in court before I am prepared to support it. I thought the issues raised by Mr Humphries were very valid. As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, I have been more than happy over the four years that I have been in here to be a strong advocate for the police association. I think that they need to be very clear on what the passing of this legislation could do to their members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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