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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 212 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

8 December. The Water Resources Bill was reported on on 29 October and was resolved on 26 November in this place. So, Mr Speaker, these things are decided on an issue by issue basis.

If the Assembly decides to delay this until the next sitting, I can live with that, but I cannot see the reason for it. The Government has had plenty of time to make up its mind about this Bill. In fact, Mr Speaker, the Government has already made up its mind about this Bill. It opposes it. It will always oppose it. When we come back next time it will oppose it again. So there is no sense in the argument it puts. If it had put an argument which had some substance in relation to the need to defer this Bill, then I would be more sympathetic, but the Government has made it clear from the outset that it will oppose this Bill. It will not move. If it is adjourned, when it comes back next time the Government will oppose it again. I think we need to expose the phoney claims of the Government that it needs more time to consider the matter.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries ) adjourned.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.03): Mr Speaker, Mr Quinlan's Bill provides for the regulation of machines in licensed premises to ensure that, when a person undertakes a breath test from one of these machines and as a result there is a reading which that person later relies upon to get behind the wheel of a car and to drive their car, that test should not be used in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings in a court. The protection being afforded by this Bill is protection both to licensees and to the manufacturers or vendors of these sorts of machines.

The Bill gives rise to the very interesting issue of what kind of reliance members of the public ought to place on these sorts of machines being available in ACT clubs, bars or taverns, or wherever they might be. They may possibly be in restaurants as well. It would not be difficult to postulate a variety of situations that would be given rise to by the fact that these machines were available and were useable by people who wished to test their blood alcohol content.

One can certainly imagine that people, having had a couple of drinks, would use the machines to get some idea of whether they were close to the limit or whether, if they got behind the wheel of their car and attempted to drive, they were likely to be in excess of the limit. Where a person allows a reasonable period after their last drink before undertaking the test, and assuming that the machine is properly calibrated and is accurate, the machine will impart an accurate impression to that person of their state of sobriety and their likelihood of being able to get behind the wheel of their car without breaking the law.

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