ROAD TRAFFIC (USE OF TEST AND ANALYSIS RESULTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 November 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (12:38): I rise to support the second reading of the government bill. It is a relatively non-controversial bill—from our viewpoint, anyway. In essence, it demonstrates the fact that as we introduce legislation in this parliament we need to be ever-mindful of any unexpected consequences or loopholes which may be created. What we are seeking to do here is correct an error made by the government about five years ago in 2005. The debate in the House of Assembly makes it clear that up until about then we did not have a problem in South Australia and that the Motor Accident Commission was able to use and admit into evidence the readings of oral fluid and blood samples taken compulsorily. The consequential certificate of analysis was able to be used not only for offences against the Motor Vehicles Act but, when the Motor Accident Commission sought to take action for return of moneys under the Civil Liability Act, the certificates of analysis were able to be used by the Motor Accident Commission.

In or about 2005 the government introduced legislation because it had a particular problem at that time. It made changes (and obviously did not think through the consequences of the changes) and made an error. We are now being asked, again, to correct another error from the government. The responsibility for this rests with the Treasurer, who is responsible for the Motor Accident Commission.

The government, or the Motor Accident Commission, has got itself into trouble in a number of recent court cases where it sought to use the certificates of analysis to demonstrate that a driver had, in fact, been intoxicated or in a drunken state and, because of the error the government made in its legislation, it has been unsuccessful in its pursuit of those particular cases.

So, now we are being asked to return the Motor Accident Commission and the government back to the position that existed prior to 2005. I do not think any member would argue against the fact that, if there were evidence against a driver who demonstrated that they were driving in an intoxicated state, clearly, that information or evidence should be available for both road traffic offence actions and any civil actions that the Motor Accident Commission might pursue because, obviously, it would have flow-on impacts on the CTP scheme—third-party insurance and third-party premiums charged to all drivers.

The Liberal Party is prepared to assist the Treasurer through another embarrassing bungle. Sadly, from the viewpoint of the people of South Australia, bungles by the Treasurer and his government on an increasingly broad range of matters are becoming all too frequent. This has not attracted much publicity yet but, as I said, it is just a further example of a government in disarray, a government in chaos, a government disintegrating before our very eyes. Nevertheless, we are prepared to assist the government through this embarrassing period and support the second reading of the legislation, because it is in the best interests of the people of South Australia that we do so.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (12:42): I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his contribution. It is interesting that he should suggest that, when the government gets some very technical amendments drafted and the court should make a finding against it, somehow or other it is the result of a government in chaos. I really think that is absolute rubbish.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Legal adventurism costs taxpayers thousands of dollars in court costs.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, I assume that means that, under a future Liberal government—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: We'd take the advice of the Solicitor-General, not the Attorney-General.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, who do you actually think drafts legislation? I really wonder whether the shadow attorney-general has any idea who actually drafts legislation. I do not want to reflect on the very good drafting people we have, but it does happen from time to time that a judge or court will make findings or interpret things differently from the parliament. The judiciary like to think they are useful occasionally. After all, when legislation comes through this parliament, it is all of us who look at it and, if there are loopholes, sometimes they are pointed out by members of this parliament but, more often than not, they are not.

As we have seen often enough throughout the history of this and other parliaments, sometimes the intention of this parliament as expressed in the legislation will not be the same as that which is interpreted by members of the judiciary. Even members of the judiciary themselves will often disagree on the meaning of a particular piece of legislation. That is why you will often get divided verdicts among the judiciary. So, let us just end this nonsense that, somehow or other, when a court decision is made interpreting a piece of legislation that has been drafted on a technical matter in a particular way, it reflects adversely on the governor of the day.

I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas and the opposition for their indication of support, as well as the Hon. Mr Hood, who spoke earlier. I should have mentioned that. I thank him and other members of the council for their indication of support to ensure that this issue in relation to the use of breath testing is corrected.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.