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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2662 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

"Readings given by this instrument may not be accurate and are not accepted by the police or the courts."

I move the amendment, as I indicated before, simply to warn members of the community that there is a real danger that such instruments can give false readings. There is a danger, which must be accepted by the person who undertakes to use the machine, that the machine may not be accurate.

The whole point of this legislation, of course, is to exonerate licensees, and manufacturers, for that matter, from liability in the event that a person who uses the machine gets an inaccurate reading, or misunderstands the reading, or in some way is put at a disadvantage or loss reliant on the information provided to them on the reading of the machine. Rather than let people be misled about the extent of the accuracy of the information on the machine, the warning makes it clear that they should not be totally reliant and totally comfortable with the reading.

I might indicate to members that there was some research conducted by a company called Research Solutions a few years ago and which was done by students at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. They surveyed 203 hoteliers and club managers in Victoria. The survey purported to show that 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 that the machines were inaccurate on top of that. There are other surveys in New South Wales which show a rather high degree of confidence on the part of licensees in the accuracy of the machines in that state. The truth may well lie somewhere between those two points.

The point is that not even the manufacturers can guarantee the accuracy of the machines at all times. The machines receive quite heavy use on some occasions and can be subject to some vandalism. It is important that people understand that they take a risk, notwithstanding what the reading might show. That is the basis of the government's amendment, and I commend it to the Assembly.

MR QUINLAN (3.58): Mr Speaker, I do not have any major objection with this inclusion in the notice. It may be a little bit pedantic, and I rather think that Mr Humphries is relying on some dated research.

There is one point that I do want to make. Mr Humphries said that the whole point of this legislation is to exonerate licensees. That is not the point of this legislation. The point of this legislation is to encourage licensees to provide this facility, hoping and trusting that it will reduce the number of people who take to their vehicles after being on the premises and having a few drinks. It is not just if they happen to be picked up by the police. It is any action that they may take. At least there is some chance that they may become alerted to the fact that they are over the limit and should act accordingly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (3.59): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name. It reads as follows:

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