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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2664 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

lapsed, and then the mere fact that it has lapsed will become the centrepiece of some court case that this legislation is designed to obviate.

If commonsense is to prevail here today, these provisions should stay in place until some review. I am happy to see a review take place in one years time, two years time or beyond. If a review demonstrates that these provisions are not good law in light of the circumstances and in light of the facts that emerge from a review, we should repeal them. By making the repeal process automatic we are taking a little bit of a risk here of creating a hiatus where we could get problems much like the problems that came up with the calibration of breathalyser equipment in the past. We could get those forms of court cases again. I request that you withdraw this amendment for those reasons. It just does not make sense, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (4.04): Mr Speaker, the amendment does make sense. I would refer Mr Quinlan to the very arguments that his party used on a similar piece of legislation relating to criminal acts a few years ago when-

Mr Quinlan: It is not about criminal acts.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is about criminal acts. Drinking and driving are criminal acts, Mr Quinlan.

Mr Quinlan: This is not about criminal acts.

MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, have it your way, but I am saying to you that this touches on the operation of the criminal law.

Mr Quinlan: When are you going to actually squarely address a point in this place?

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries has the call.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry you have to be personal about this, Mr Quinlan, but I am telling you that there is a precedent-

Mr Berry: Mock indignation, I think.

Mr Quinlan: You will go blind.

MR SPEAKER: Settle down.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, during debate on the move-on powers in this place nine or 10 years ago-I think it was 10 years ago-members opposite argued passionately that legislation of this kind ought to have sunset clauses in it to force the parliament to go back-

Mr Quinlan: This is not legislation of that kind.

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