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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 214 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

equipment that it is giving overall accurate information to people who are using it, and that those who operate the machines are confident that they are providing an accurate picture to people who are using them.

There is evidence of surveys being done in other jurisdictions on this sort of legislation which suggest that there may be problems with the way in which those who install them, that is the licensees, actually see the reliability of the machine and its tests. I understand that there was research conducted by Research Solutions which was comprised of management students at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology which found that in a survey of 203 hoteliers and club managers in Victoria a staggering 100 per cent of the club managers or owners had no confidence in the accuracy of readings in the breath analysing machines. Fifty per cent of the hoteliers believed also that the machines were inaccurate. There are other surveys from New South Wales where there is a rather high degree of confidence on the part of licensees in the accuracy of the machines installed in that State. Whether there is a difference in the quality of the machines in those two states, I do not know, but it is interesting to observe - - -

Mr Quinlan: How you ask your question, I would suggest.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it could be also how you ask the question. That is quite possible. The point I am trying to make is that we need to be very empirically testing that we are actually leading people into safer drinking and driving behaviours as a result of this legislation offering protection to people who are either manufacturers and distributors of this sort of equipment or licensees of premises in which the equipment is installed. We must ensure that people are getting a complete and accurate picture of what is going on in the majority of cases; that the community is benefiting from the legal protection which this legislation would afford to those machines.

The Government is prepared to give that issue the benefit of the doubt at this stage and to accept that we should ensure some measure of protection for the operators of the machines. The question could be asked: "If the machines are being installed, if the manufacturers have confidence in them, why is it necessary to give them a blanket protection against being sued?". I suppose the answer is that these machines can never be satisfactorily made 100 per cent accurate. The same, I suppose, could be said about the breath analysis machines used by the police on the streets of our city to measure the alcohol content of people's breath. Nonetheless, Mr Speaker, those issues having been put on the table, and, as I have said, there are amendments to deal with some of them, I do not weigh too heavily against the legislation. We support the Bill for that reason, with those amendments.

MR RUGENDYKE (5.14): Mr Speaker, I will be brief and just indicate that I will support this legislation. It appears to be wise legislation. It would indemnify a club owner or members from proceedings, either criminal or civil, if a person uses the machine and gets caught once they leave the premises. Also, to allay Mr Humphries' concerns about what happens if the machine is used and they do get caught by the police, it is important to note that the machine must be accompanied by a legible sign informing users that the readings given by the instrument are not accepted by the police or the courts, and also that the blood alcohol level can rise for an hour or more after the last drink. So there are safeguards there.

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