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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 216 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

those warning signs, although no-one should be in any doubt that they should be absolutely relied on. That is why I think having a notice on the machine is a very sensible idea, because it warns patrons that these instruments would not be accepted by the police or the courts.

I mentioned earlier the integrity of the breathalyser law. I am pleased to see that Mr Quinlan has in his legislation that evidence of the results of a test that indicates a presence or concentration of alcohol in the blood performed on a breath analysing instrument et cetera is not admissible in any criminal proceedings. That is a very important thing because that does ensure the integrity of the police breathalyser machines. I do not know whether anyone has tried it for about 10 years, but after the integrity of the police machines was maintained - - -

Mr Quinlan: Bill, will you stop agreeing with us?

MR STEFANIAK: It is a worry, isn't it, Ted? There were a few cases when someone would go to court and a few witnesses would say, "I saw him. He only had two schooners of VB over the course of two hours". Having such a provision there I think would get away from the situation of someone saying, "I had two or three schooners of VB in the space of three hours. I then blew in the club's machine and I was 0.04. I felt I could drive. Here are my three friends", and the friends all give that same evidence. That may cause some problems in court, so again I think that is a good provision.

I looked at proposed new subsection 177A (2). Initially that seemed a bit strange. I suppose that is an admission that there might well be something wrong with these machines, but let us see how that pans out in practice. Perhaps Mr Quinlan could address that. Obviously, if there are any problems with that or anything else in this amendment, I am sure that can be looked at in a two-year period. Certainly, on balance, I think there are some very positive points in relation to this. From my experience with breathalyser and drink-driving matters in the courts, this should help considerably.

Whilst these machines are a vast improvement on what there was before - they do give some good indications and therefore I do not think anyone would want to discourage them being used - some proviso probably does need to be put on them, saying that they are not necessarily 100 per cent accurate and people should use them as a guide rather than as gospel. Most of what Mr Quinlan proposes seems to do that.

Debate (on motion by Mr Smyth ) adjourned.

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