2334 EASSEMBLY.]

The Hon. A. F. Griffith: In view ofwhat I have said, Mr. Watson might notmove the new clause.

The Hon. H. K. WATSON: I shall re-frain from moving the new clause, butI wish to refer to its purport and effect.The provisions in the clause are reallydesigned to meet the objective the Ministerhas of covering all classes of people.except those who are exempted under theAct.

The Hon. A. F. GRIFFITH: Everyclause in the Bill has now been clearedup, except clauses 25 and 27. if wearrive at alternatives to what is containedin the Bill and in the amendments on thenotice paper, it might be necessary tocome back to clause 42.

The Hon. F. J. S. Wise: If this Bill isso important and the amendments sovital, could the Minister have the amend-ments drafted as an addendum to a sub-sequent notice paper?

The Hon. A. F. GRIFFITH: I can putthem on the notice paper for Tuesday,and I shall do all I can to have thatnotice paper printed by tomorrow after-noon.

Postponed clause put and passed.Progress

Progress reported and leave given to sitagain, on motion by The Hon. A. F. Griffith(Minister for Justice).

House adjourned at 8.50 P.m.

Thursday, the 11th November, 1965

CONTENTSPage

ADJOURNMENT OF THE ROUSE ...2386BILLS-

Death Duties (Taxing) Act AmendmentBill-2r. 2839

Decimal Currency "Bill-Zr. . .23

Land Tax Act Amendment Dill-Zr. .2339

Local Government Act Amendment Bill(No. 2)-Conference Managers' Report 238

Married Persons and Children (SummaryRelief) Bill-Zr. .am 24

Offenders Probation and Parole Act Amend-ment Dill-

Receipt ; Ir. 238Pig Industry Compensation Act Amend-

ment Bii-Intro. ; Ir. 233

Road Maintenance (Contribution) Bill-Returned ... ". I.. .. .. 2343

Superannuation and Family Benefits ActAmendment Bil-Zr. .............. 238

BILLS-4ontinuedTraffic Act Amendment Bill (No. 3)-

2r. ... ..Corn. .. .. .. . ..Report ... ..- .. . ..

Traffic Act Amendment Bill (No. 4)-Zr.QUESTIONS ON NOTICE-

floats, Power-Driven : Registrations ..Breathalyser and Blood Tests : Correlation

of Findings .... .. .. ..Drunken Driving: Blood Tests-Acquit-

(ala : Circumstances .... ..Eiectricity Meters In Flats . Responsibility

for Payment of Accounts ... ..Iron Ore-

Koolan, Cockatoo, and Irvine IslandsAnaiyses, Estimated lounges, andAverage Iron Content ..

Whyalla and Cape Preston : Handling,Transporting, and Pelletising Costs

Motor Vehicles : Revenue from Tax of Is.per Cwt. .... .............. .. .

Nurses' Training College ,EstablishmentWelshpooi Primary School :Future ..

STATE FORESTS-Revocation of Dedication :Assembly's

Resolution- Council's Message

pag.

34W2W82M82340

2334

W35

2386

2334

am3

2836

2335am32336

M68

The SPEAKER (Mr. Hearman) took theChair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

PIG INDUSTRY COMPENSATIONACT AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First ReadingBill introduced, on motion by Mr. Nalder

(Minister for Agriculture), and read a firsttime.

QUESTIONS (9): ON NOTICEPOWER-DRIVEN ]BOATS

Registrations1.Mr. DAVIES asked the Minister for

Works:(1) How many power-driven boats

were registered with the Harbourand Light Department as at-The 31st December, 1983:The 31st December, 1964?

(2) What is the number currentlyregistered?

Mr. BOVELL (for Mr. Ross Hutchin-son) replied;(1) 31st December, 1963 ... 6,828

31st December, 1964 9,478(2) 10,694.

ELECTRICITY METERS IN FLATSResponsibility for Payment of Accounts

2. Mr. GRAHAM asked the Minister forElectricity:

Where, for example, a block con-taining four self-contained flatshas been built, and they are

2334

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.] 2335

served by a master meter plus sub-meters for each individual flat,and two of the fiats have subse-quently been sold and are nowowned by a completely differentperson, is a new meter or mastermeter allowed the new owner, or isthe original owner required to re-gard the new owner as a "tenant,"which he is not, and have theresponsibility for payment of theentire account with the job of col-lecting from this new owner?

Mr. NALDER replied:It is not possible to answerquestion without knowingstructural arrangements ofparticular flats units.

thisthethe

MOTOR VEHICLESRevenue from Tax of Is. per Curt.

3. Mr. BICKERTON asked the Premier:What revenue would be producedfrom a tax of is. per cwt. placedon the tare weight of every motorvehicle in Western Australia?

Mr. NALER (for Mr. Brand) replied:Because of the number of licensingauthorities and the various typesof vehicles. it is not possible tomake an accurate assessment.However, as an approximateestimate, the amount would be inthe vicinity of £450,000.

NURSES' TRAINING COLLEGEEstablishment

4. Mr. SEWELL asked the Minister re-presenting the Minister for Health:(1) Has the Government been re-

quested to establish a college ofnursing in Western Australia bypersons interested In all phases ofnursing, such college to be similarIn character to those operating inVictoria, New South Wales, andQueensland?

(2) As Western Australia is short ofhighly qualified staff, particularlytutorial staff, will he give consid-eration to supporting a college ofnursing in Western Australia simi-lar to those operating in Mel-bourne and Brisbane, such col-lege to be mainly under the con-trol and supervision of the Uni-versity of Western Australia?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(1) and(2) NO: but the Nurses' Reg-

istration Board, in conjunctionwith the Western Australian StateCommittee of the College ofNursing, Australia, is at presentinvestigating the future of post-graduate nursing training inWestern Australia.

I expect in due course to be ad-vised on the subject matter, fol-lowing which it will have my con-sideration.

BREATHALYSER, AND BLOOD TESTSCorrelation of Findings

5. Mr. EVANS asked the Minister forPolice:(1) Is he aware of any authoritative

tests that have been conducted tocorrelate the findings of a "breath-alyser" test and a blood test ofthe same subject under controlledcircumstances?

(2) If so, would he please inform theHouse of same?

Mr. CRAIG replied:(1) Yes.(2) Information on the correlation is

contained in a report of the pro-ceedings of the Third Interna-tional Conference on Alcohol andRoad 'Taffic, held in London inSeptember, 1962, under the aus-pices of the British Medical As-sociation. The report is availableto the honourable member if heso desires.

IRON ORE: KOOLAN, COCKATOO.AND IRVINE ISLANDS

Analyses, Estimated Tonnages, andAverage Iron Content

6. Mr. GRAYDEN asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for mines:(1) Will he supply details of analyses

considered to be representative ofiron ore on Koolan Island, Cocka-too Island, and Irvine Island re-spectively?

(2) What is the estimated tonnage ofiron ore-(a) above high water level;(b) below high water levelon each of the above islands?

(3) What Is the average iron (Pe)content of the iron ore on eachisland?

Mr.(1)

BOVELL replied:Representative analyses of orefrom Koolan Island, CockatooIsland, and Irvine Island:

Keaton friend-

Iron .... ...silias ..MumnnTitania ..Phospborn.

cockatoo island-

Main Ore Bodyre 67 -0"

0 002%,0.%

Milkh Grade ZoneFe .... 600,

P .... 0.0".8 .... Tr.

. .. 0-4%

Canga OreFe .... 55.0-'Flo

TI6, ::..

H. .... 5P

Low Grade ZoneFe .... 57-0o'

Pio .... 005%S.... fT.

H.0 .... 6.0%

[ASSEMBLY.]

The high-grade and low-gradezones are blended to produce ashipping grade of approximately62% Fe.

Irvine IslandOre body is too small to be ofeconomic consequence. Highlysiliceous ore containing between40 and 55 per cent. iron and upto 20 per cent. silica. Reserveshave not been estimated.

(2) (a) The ore reserves of Cockatooisland were estimated origi-nally at 21 million tons downto 40 feet above high waterlevel at an average grade of64 per cent. iron (Fe) and in-cluding both the low andhigh-grade zones (about 8million tans of these reserveshave been mined).The main ore body at Koolanisland Is estimated to con-tain 45 million tons of hema-tite ore down to 40 feet abovesea level at an average gradeof 66 per cent. iron (Fe) and5 million tons of canga oreat an average grade of 58 percent. Iron (Fe).The Acacia, ore body atKoolan Island Is estimated tocontain 12 million tons of oreaveraging 60 per cent. iron(Fe).

(b) no accurate estimations of theore reserves below sea levelhave been made. Drillinghas proven the extension ofboth the Koolan and Cocka-too ore bodies below sea levelbut it is doubtful whether thedeeper ore could be econo-mically mined because of thehigh overburden ratio.

(3) See answer to (2).

WELSHPOOL PRiMARY SCHOOL

Future7. Mr. JAMIESON asked the Minister for

Education:In view of the fall in student num-bers and the proposed develop-ment in the Welsbpool area, whatis the future of the WeishpoolPrimary School?

Mr. LEWIS replied:The present enrolment is 75.The estimate for 1966 is fig.Even if this slow rate of declinepersists the school will still re-main open for some years to come.For this reason no action is con-templated in the near future.

IRON ORE AT WHYALLA ANDCAPE PRESTON

Handling, Transporting, andPelletising Costs

8. Mr. GRAYDEN asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Mines:

What is the anticipated cost ofmining, handling, transporting,and pelletising the Iron ore to beprocessed In-(a) the plant being constructed

for B.H.P. at Whyalla, SouthAustralia;

(b) the plant to be jointly con-structed by B.H.P. and Cleve-land-Cliffs at Cape Preston?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(a) No information Is available.

Western Australian Iron oreis not used nor Is it intendedto be used at Whyalla.

(b) The honourable memberasked a similar question onthe 18th August, 1965 and theanswer given on that occasionstill applies. It must beappreciated that It Is notpossible at this stage to giveany reliable estimates.

DRUNKEN DRIVING: BLOOD TESTSAcquittals: Circumstances

9. Mr. JAMIESON asked the Minister forPolice:

What were the circumstancesassociated with the three acquit-tals referred to In answer toquestion 19, Wednesday, the 10thNovember, 1965, dealing withblood tests associated withdrunken driving charges?

Mr. GRAIG replied:Two persons were acquitted in1959 with a blood alcohol con-tent of 0.16 per cent. and oneperson was acquitted in 1960with a blood alcohol content of0.15 per cent.In the early stages there appearedto be some doubt as to the weightthat should be given to certifi-cates of analyists Produced asevidence.Following a decision in the Courtof Appeal in 1962 an analyist'scertificate that the percentage ofalcohol in the blood was 0.15 percent. or more has been acceptedas prima ladie evidence.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILLSecond Reading

MR, NALDER (Katanning-DeputyPremier) [2.23 p-m.]: I move-

That the Jl1l be now read a. secondtime.

[Thursday. 11 November, 1965.] 2337

I would like to outline the contents of thisBill on behalf of the Treasurer. TWOYears ago, the Commonwealth Parliamentpassed the Currency Act 1963, which pro-vided for the introduction In Australia ofa system of decimal currency comprisingdollars and cents. As members are aware,the 14th February, 1966, (commonly re-ferred to as C-day), has been fixed as thedate of changeover to the new currency.

The Currency Act 1963 is to be replacedby a new Act entitled the Currency Act1966, and in the Bill now before theChamber reference has been made to thelatter Act, although it has not yet beenpassed by the Commonwealth Parliament.This Act, however, will be the basis of theCommonwealth currency law and will bethe Act relevant to the changeover.

The Commonwealth has power to effectall changes which the adoption of decimalcurrency will render necessary with theexception of the actual amendment oralteration of the construction of the textof State Acts, laws, and statutory instru-ments. It is necessary therefore, for allStates to introduce legislation to comple-ment the Commonwealth Act for the pur-pose of making provision in relation to theamendment and construction of Statelaws, whether statutory or subordinate,consequent upon the changeover to deci-mal currency. It is for this reason thatthe Bill before us has been drafted. Itprovides that all references to money ap-pearing in a law of the State shall, unlessspecifically excepted, be converted to ref-erences in decimal currency on the basisof the following equivalents-

One pound or = two dollars*sovereign

One shilling = ten centsOne penny = five-sixths of a

centThe term "law of the State" is definedto Include-

an Act;any regulation, rule, or by-law made

under or having effect by virtueof an Act;

and statutory instruments of variouskinds.

Suitable provisions have also been madein the Bill for the conversion into deci-mal currency of percentages or other pro-portions expressed in terms of money inan existing "law of the State," and forreferences to the nearest pound, nearestshining, and nearest penny to be con-strued as references to the nearest dollar,nearest t0e, or nearest cent as the casemnay require.

Examples have been given in a scheduleto the Bill of percentages and propor-tions to make the method of conversionfrom the old to the new currency perfectlyclear. It Is not possible in every instanceof a reference to an amount of money to

convert to the exact equivalent in deci-mal currency as there are some cuseswhere it would not be physically possibleto pay the exact equivalent in decimalcurrency. For example, an amount of 3d.converts to 21c, but as there is to be noone-half cent coin it is clearly impossibleto make a single payment of this sum.Therefore, although the general rule willbe to convert amounts of the existing cur-rency to the exact equivalents in decimalcurrency. it is necessary in some Instancesto depart from this rule and fix an appro-priate new rate for operation from C-day.

Mr. Graham: And I will bet it is steppedup in such cases.

Mr. NALDER: Well, we will see.Mr. Graham: It will be 3c rather than

2e.Mr. NALDER: A survey of existing leg-

islation discloses that a number of Actscontain money references which, if con-verted exactly to decimal currency, wouldnot appear as whole amounts in such cur-rency. In certain instances-f or examplea levy of 3d. per ton-this is of no greatconsequence as the amounts are calculat-ing rates, and although unwieldy-lookingfractions may result from exact conver-sion to decimal currency, it is not too dif-ficult to use these fractions in calculatingamounts. In these cases, therefore, it isnot proposed to depart from the generalrule of exact conversion; i.e., for theexample quoted, the rate from C-daywould become 21c per ton.

The general provisions of the Bill pro-vide for a rate in the pound to he con-verted to an equivalent rate in the dollarwhich, although of similar effect, doesrepresent a change in the units of calcu-lation. It was therefore thought desir-able to set out the Acts affected by thischange together with proposed amend-ments. This has been done in the firstschedule to the Bill, and in order to as-sist a study of the measure I have had anexplanatory statement prepared whichhas been distributed to members withcopies of the Bil.

Where it is necessary to depart from thegeneral rule of exact conversion, a refer-ence to the Act concerned and the pro-posed amendment has also been inserted inthe first shedule.

It will be noted by members when theyhave had an opportunity to study the firstschedule that the only change of anymoment is in the rate of stamp duty onreceipts.

The present duty is 3d. on receipts foramounts of £6 up to £100. It is also 3d.for every £100 and part thereof for receiptsexceeding £100. As it is not physicallypossible to pay the exact equivalent of 21cIt is proposed to increase the rate to 3c.

2338 [ASSEMBLY.]

The Bill provides that each of the Actsspecified in the first schedule is to beamended in the manner expressed In thatschedule, and also by substituting for anyother amounts of money referred to Inthose Acts, the corresponding amounts indecimal currency.

The Acts specified are those requiringamendment as Indicated by a survey con-ducted by departments, with the exceptionof the Superannuation and FamilyBenefits Act, the Death Duties (Taxing)Act, and the Land Tax Act which areto be dealt with separately, because of theirnumerous monetary references.

It has been deemed prudent, in case thislist is not exhaustive1 to allow the Governorby Order-In-Council to add other Acts tothe first schedule should such a courseprove necessary, and the Bill provides ac-cordingly.

Acts not listed in the first schedule willnot be directly amended by the passing ofthe Bill but under Its provisions any refer-ences to the old currency in those Acts areto be construed as references to corres-ponding amounts in the new currency.

However, the Bill does allow, on any re-print of these Acts, for all necessarychanges to be made of monetary referencestherein to corresponding references ex-pressed in decimal currency.

The situation with respect to referencesin terms of the old currency to amounts ofmoney in regulations, rules, and by-laws Isthe same as for Acts, In that the Bill pro-vides for all such references to be con-strued as references to correspondingamounts in the new currency.

Similarly, on the reprinting of regula-tions including rules and by-laws, provisionis made for all necessary changes to bemade in references to the old currency soas to make them correspond with the newcurrency.

There is a mass of statutory instrumentssuch as proclamations, orders, awards,determinations, and the like, containingreferences to amounts of money in the oldcurrency. Under the provisions of the Billthese references will be converted auto-matically to references to correspondingamounts in the new currency. Here again.difficulties could arise in those instanceswhere it is not practicable to apply theexact decimal equivalent of an amount ofexisting currency.

It will be obvious that these multitu-dinolus statutory Instruments cannot be thesubject of direct amendment by Act ofParliament, and, furthermore, in a largenumber of cases no provision exists fortheir amendment.

Consequently, it has been considered ad-visable to include in the Bill an authorityfor the Government to amend any statu-tory instrument concerned by Order-in-Council where he considers such action isnecessary in relation to the change todecimal currency.

This provision will become operative assoon as the Bill Is passed and assented toand will enable relevant departments toarrange, wherever possible, for any ap-propriate amendments to statutory Instru-ments before C-day, so that they may takeeffect from that date.

It should be noted that this provisiondoes not preclude amendment in theordinary way where one exists, and indeedin a number of cases the ordinary methodwould no doubt be no more difficult thanthat provided by the Order-in-Council pro-vision.

The provision for amendment by Order-in-Council is extended also by the BIll forregulations, rules, and by-laws, for thereason that the authorised method ofamendment could in some cases cause in-convenient delays--for instance, In thecase of municipal by-laws, making oramending a by-law is a matter of somedifficulty, requiring resolutions and certainnotices and procedure in order to complywith the requirements of the Local Govern-ment Act.

it is also proposed to give the Governorpower to resolve any doubts or difficultieswhich may crop up in the conversion todecimal currency. Such a power is essential,because It is quite impossible at this stage,notwithstanding a careful survey of theposition, to cover every aspect of conver-sion, and there are bound to be instanceswhere an Order-in-Council will be requiredto authorise appropriate action.

It has been agreed that it will benecessary for all banks to close for severaldays in the week preceding C-day in orderto facilitate transition from the old to thenew currency and the Bill allows for suchclosure in the case of the Rural and In-dustries Bank. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Debate adjourned, on motion by M~r.Jamieson.

SUPERANNUATION AND FAMILYBENEFITS ACT AMENDMENT

BILLSecond Reading

MR. NRLDER (Katanning-DeputyPremier) [2.37 p.m.) I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

When introducing the Decimal CurrencyBill I1 made mention of three Acts whichrequired specific amendment in order toprepare for the Introduction of decimal

2338

[Thursday. 11 November. 1965.) 2339

currency, and which had not been includedin the schedule to that Bill, because oftheir numerous monetary references.

One of these is the Superannuation andFamily Benefits Act, and the Bill withwhich I am now dealing seeks to amendthis Act. It Is a fairly lengthy measure:but with one exception, all the proposedamendments do no more than convertmoney references in existing currency totheir exact equivalents in decimal currency.

The one exception concerns the fourschedules to the Act and in this case ithas been necessary to propose four newschedules in substitution for the presentones. These Prescribe the rates of contri-bution Payable fortnlghtly, determinedaccording to age next birthday, for unitsof superannuation in the case of males andfemales based on elected retiring ages of60 and 65.

It is not practical to convert all existingE. s. d. rates of contribution to their exactequivalent In decimal currency for thereason that in the majority of instances,sums would result which it would be impos-sible to pay in terms of the new currency.

Another complication is that existingschedules set out the contribution requiredfor each two units of Pension notwithstand-ing the fact that contributors may and dotake out one additional unit at a time.The cost of one additional unit under theexisting scale is ascertained by halvingthe appropriate charge for two units, andalthough this sometimes produces rateswith halfpennies, these are manageable interms of the existing currency. In the newcurrency, however, the smallest unit is onecent and It was therefore necessary toarrive at a new basis for charging forsingle units.

These Problems were referred to theGovernment's consulting actuary and inorder to solve them he has designed newschedules which although in the largemajority of cases do not express the exactdecimal equivalents of the existing E. s. d.rates, do conform as closely as possible tothem. The consulting actuary has alsodrawn up the Proposed new schedules soar, to fix the appropriate rate of contribu-tion for single units.

I should mention, too, that the Super-annuation Board recommends the adoptionof the new schedules to the Bill, whichI no* commend to members.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr.Hawke (Leader of the Opposition).

DEATH DUTIES (TAXING)AMENDMENT BILL

ACT

Second Reading

MRl. NAIJDER (Katanning-DeputyPremier) (2,43 P.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Because of the numerous monetary re-ferences in the Death Duties (Taxing)Act, it was thought desirable to submit aseparate Bill for its amendment to pro-vide for the changeover to decimal cur-rency on the 14th February next year.It is for this reason that the Decimal Cur-rency Bill makes no specific mention ofthe Death Duties (Taxing) Act.

The amendments set out In the Billnow under consideration simply substituteexact decimal equivalents for amountsnow expressed in the Act in C s. d. andchange rates in the pound to equivalentrates in the dollar.

Some of the new rates are a little un-wieldy and perhaps could have beenrounded off here and there in order tofacilitate administrative procedures, but itwas considered desirable at this stage tomake exact equivalent conversions fromthe old to the new currency rather thanchange the structure of the several scales.It may be necessary later on to redesignthese scales in the light of experience withthem, but in the meantime it will be feas-ible to apply them.

The changes proposed in the Hill willnot result in any variation in the level ofduty imposed on deceased estates.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr.Hawke (Leader of the Opposition).

LAND TAX ACT AMENDMENTBILL

Second ReadingMR1. NATDER (IKatanning-Deputy

Premier) [2.46 p.m.]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second

time.This Is another measure which is con-cerned with the changeover to decimalcurrency. It Proposes the addition to theLand Tax Act of a new section to prescriberates of tax in amounts of decimal cur-rency which are to operate for the year ofassessment ending the 30th June, 1967. andfor each year of assessment thereafter. Aschedule In the Bill details the new rateswhich have been expressed as rates in thedollar.

This change from the current practiceof applying the tax on the basis of a ratein the pound is consistent with the prin-ciple adopted in the Decimal CurrencyBill which, Incidentally, includes a pro-Posed amendment to the Land Tax As-sessment Act to Provide for land tax tobe levied for every dollar of the unim-Proved value of land in lieu of every pound.All that is involved here is a change inthe unit of calculation.

Members will observe from the study ofthe Bill now before them, that the Pro-posed new rates of tax are the exactequivalents in the dollar of the existing

2340 (ASSEMLY]3

rates in the Pound. These changes willneither increase nor reduce the amount oftax payable by an owner of land.

Mr. W. Hegney: Marvellous!Mr. NALDER: He will, of course, pay

in dollars and cents, but only the equiva-lent in the new currency of what hewould have paid in the old. I thereforecommend this measure to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr.Hawke (Leader of the Opiposition).

TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENTBILL (No. 4)Second Reading

1MR. CRAIG (Toodyay-Minister forTraffic) [2A49 p.m.3 : I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

This Bill seeks to amend the Traffic Actin the following manner: firstly, to in-crease vehicle license fees; seconidly, toincrease drivers' license fees: thirdly, toalter the formula for assessing vehiclelicense fees; and, fourthly, to revise vehicleconcession licenses.

Last year, 1964-65, was the first underthe new arrangements arising from theCommonwealth Aid Roads Act, 1964. Inthis year-that is, 1964-65-the maximumamount available to the State as additionalassistance from the Commonwealth was£530,931. In order to attract this sum wewere required to increase our allocationsto roads from our own resources in 1964-65 by an equivalent sum.

Our net increase In allocations to road-works in 1964-65 from vehicle and drivers'license lees was only £128,135. To thissum we added £400,000 from the GeneralLoan Fund and were thus able to attract£528,135 from the Commonwealth. Wefailed by £2,796 to attract the maximumgrant from the Commonwealth,

Although £400,000 of loan funds wereused for road Purposes in 1964-65, £150,000of this amount was recouped to the LoanFund from the Commonwealth aid roadfunds. The net cost to the Loan Fundfor roads in 1964-65 was therefore £250,000.

Because of the favourable treatment ofWestern Australia in the distribution ofCommonwealth road grants-ue to theallowance made for area in the formula-the additional assistance available to usincreases at the very high rate of £530,000in each of the next four years. Thisincludes 1965-66. The present term isfour years. However, in order to obtainthis benefit our commitment from licensefees, etc., must increase by a correspondingsum per annum.

The normal growth in collections fromvehicle and drivers' license fees at presentrates will fall far short of the amount

necessary to attract the maximum Com-monwealth grant. The following is anestimate of the situation if the present rateof license fees continued:-

Maximum EstlmatedGrant not InesM shctthf

Avallablo In feesF. f E

los5-6s6.. 1,060,000 300,000 670,000196847 1 1,90,000 719,000 871,0001967-e4.8 2,120,000 1.075,0D0 1.045.00015-69 .. 2,60,0000 1,460,000 1,190.000

£8,776,000

We, therefore, stand to lose £3,776,000 inCommonwealth grants for roads over thefour-year period unless we-

(a) Use loan funds to make good theshortfall; or

(b) raise additional moneys for ex-penditure on roads.

It Is not feasible to contemplate anyfurther use of loan funds as we did in1964-65 for road works. There are alreadyinsufficient of these funds for other capitalworks. The alternatives facing the Gov-ernment are-

(a) Forgo the grants or a proportionof them. If we do, then there isnothing more certain than a re-vision in 1969 to our detriment ofthe formula including the basisfor determining the basic grantsfor roads.

(b) An increase in taxes and chargesfor the dual purpose of financingadditional expenditure on roadsand attracting the maximumCommonwealth assistance.

It is proposed, therefore, to raise ad-ditionai revenue in this measure by-

(a) An increase in vehicle license tees.(b) A lift in drivers' license fees.(c) A reduction in primary producers'

vehicle license concessions,Dealing with the vehicle license fees, in

1964-65 our vehicle license fees werereasonably comparable with the "stand-ard"; that is, the average of New SouthWales and Victoria. However, Victoriaraised its fees substantially from the 1stJuly this year. The increases were privatevehicles, 22 per cent; business cars, 44 percent.; and commercial vehicles, 50 per cent.

In order to keep our level of fees some-where near "standard', it is necessary toincrease equal to about 50 per cent. of therises in Victoria. This means increases of10 per cent, for private vehicles and 25per cent. for commercial vehicles. Whilepursuing this as a general objective, be-cause of the change in the assessmentformula from power weight to tare weight,individual vehicles will vary somewhat.

The new basis of licensing on a tareweight formula in lieu of the present powerweight basis would remove anomalies par-ticularly in respect of prime movers andsemitrailers. At the same time, it would

2340

(Thursday. 11 November, 1965.] 34

achieve the desirable objective of greatlysimplifying licensing procedures and thecalculation of fees.

If I quote a few examples of the effectof this change of formula, it might assistmembers. In the case of motor cars, aHolden 149 manual has a present licensefee of £12 5s. That is on the presentsystem of licensing using the formulapower weight ratio. Under the tare weightbasis, which is the proposed new formula,the license fee would be £13 10s. in otherwords, the license fee will increase from£12 Ba. to £13 10s.

The Present license fee of a Holdenautomatic is £14 and this will be increasedto £15. A Falcon automatic at present is£13 10s., and in this case there will be nochange. The present fee for a Volkswagenis £7 5s., and this will be increased to £7los. I think it will be appreciated thatthe increases are not substantial.

In the case of utilities, the present feefor a Holden is £14 14s. and this will be re-duced to £14 l0s. A five-ton Bedford, witha carrying capacity of 6 tons 11 cwt., willincrease from £33 to £51. But a seven-tonInternational with a payload of 8 tons 4cwt., would increase from £55 7s, to £78.However, in the case of this vehicle, becauseit has a load capacity in excess of 8 tons itwould enjoy the 50 per cent, concession byvirtue of the fact that it will be liable forroad tax. In effect, this license fee will bereduced and instead of £55 7s. the fee willbe £38.

Another type of commercial vehiclewhich is enjoying a certain advantageunder the existing formula, because of itstype of engine, Is the Commer. If I recall.this vehicle has been referred to on manyoccasions in this House. Under the presentformula the Coinmer, which has a horse-power of 12.5 with a tare of 118 cwt., is onlypaying £3 7s. Oid. This will be increased to£75, but here again it will be subject tothe benefit of the 50 per cent. reductionbecause it is paying the road maintenancetax.

There are many types of motor-cycles,and the scooter seems to be the mostpopular. Motor-cycles vary according tohorsepower. They range from 1s. to £210s.. and it is proposed that they will allbe charged £2 l0s.

Caravans also vary in tare. The fee fora 13-cwt. caravan at present is £l19s, andit will be raised to £2 s. The fee for acaravan of 15 cwt. at present is £2 5s.and it will stay at that figure. For an 18-cwt. caravan the fee is £2 14s., and it willrise to £3.

Mr. J. Hegney: What about prams?Mr. CRAIG: We will come to them in a

moment. For a home-made trailer of 5cwt. the fee at present is £l10s;, and it willremain the same. For a home-made trailer

of 17 cwt. the fee is £6, and It will remainthe same. So members can see we arebeing rather generous.

I now come to the heavier units of motorwagons including the tractor type primemovers, and semitrailers. Previously theywere treated as two separate units. Overthe years we have had representations fromthe operators of these vehicles to bringtheir license fees into line with those in theEastern States. The opportunity has beentaken to do that on the introduction of thisBill. Take an "E"-class combination-single drive axle prime mover and singleaxle semi. We find that the Ford ThamesTrader with a semitrailer has a license feeof £152 17s. at present, and this will be re-duced to £117. Here again the owner ofsuch a vehicle will enjoy the privilege ofa 50 per cent. reduction on the existinglicense fee. This is one of the types ofvehicles that will be contributing mostlyto the road maintenance fund.

I come now to the "Jt. class combina-tion, single drive axle prime mover andtandem axle semi. The International withsemitrailer is quoted. At present the fee Is£178 13s., and it will be reduced to £137.The next is the "M"-class combination-tandem axle drive prime mover and tandemaxle semi. The Leyland Hippo with asemitrailer pays £213 i2s., and for achange that amount will be increasedto £275. The next is the "MA"-class com-bination-twin steering axle, tandem driveaxle and tandem axle semi. The Fodenand semitrailer-this is a really largetype-pays an -annual fee of £209 17s., andit will be increased to £291.

I have taken the liberty of reading outthis information in order that membersmight have an appreciation of what isintended by way of increases and, mightI say, reductions, In license fees.

I come now to the matter of drivers'license fees. The fee in Victoria is £Eland in New South Wales it is £2. The"standard" is 30s. compared with 20s. inWestern Australia. A rise in the WesternAustralian fee from £1 to £l10s. per an-num brings our charge to "standard."

In Western Australia the Traffic Actprovides for a free license to be issued inrespect of primary producers' vehicles usedsolely on a farm or pastoral holding andnot used on a road otherwise than in pass-ing from one portion of the property toanother portion thereof. A concessionlicense at 50 per cent. of the normal feeis also available for onie vehicle owned bya primary producer and, at the discretionof the local authority. this concession maybe extended to additional vehicles if theauthority is satisfied that the vehicles areused solely or mainly for the carriage ofthe products of a farming or grazing busi-ness.

Mr. Bickerton: That was a handoutto the Country Party.

2341

2342 ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. CRAIG: If it were not for theCountry Party this State would be in amuch worse Position than it is in today.

Mr. Graham: Impossible.Mr. CRAIG:, With the help of our col-

leagues of the Liberal Party, of course.Mr. Hawke: The tail seems to be wag-

ging the elephant.Mr. Lewis: The tail is a very essential

part; It keeps the animal on its course.Mr. Rawke: It does more than that.Mr. CRAIG: There appears to be a comn-

plete, lack of uniformity in the interpre-tation of the provisions of issue of con-cession licenses by local authorities. Somepermit one concession license only perfarmer or farm or holding; others refuseconcessions to station wagons and utilities;others allow concessions to motorcycles,private cars, and other vehicles as wellas utilities and trucks without limit to thenumber of concession licenses which maybe held by any one person.

Thus, might I say, it is an accidentwhether a concession license is, or is not,issued to one type of vehicle or another.Generally speaking, however, it appearsthat most authorities allow concessions forcommercial type vehicles, motor wagons,and utilities, and relatively few allow themto private cars and other small vehicles.

Mr. Hall: What about pensioners?Mr. CRAIG: We are not dealing with

them in this Bill. It is anomalous fora farmer in one part of the country to betreated differently from another at a dif-ferent location, and a uniform concessionappears highly desirable on the roundof equity alone. It is therefore proposedthat the Traffic Act be amended to removethe discretion now given to local authori-ties under section 11 (5) (a) to chargea half-license fee for additional vehicles.In other words, it is proposed to limit theconcession to one vehicle only and thisto be confined to commercial vehicles of30 cwt. tare and above. For the informa-tion of members, a Holden utility 23-25cwt. tare, for instance, would be excluded.

In considering this proposal it Is neces-sary to bear in mind that a farmer is alsogiven a free license for vehicles (includingtractors) used solely on his property, and heis charged a reduced fee for tractors usedfor the carriage or hauling of the productsor requisites of his business. It is not pro-posed to vary these concessions.

Vehicles subject to road maintenancecharge will be licensed under the TrafficAct at 50 per cent. of the normal rate.It has been estimated that the value offarmers' concessions, excluding f reelicenses, is £250,000 per annum. It is diffi-cult to determine the effect on collectionsof limiting the concession to one comnmer-cial vehicle of 30 cwt. tare and above, butit could result in additional revenue Of£140,000 in a full year.

The following yields are the estimatedadditional collections from the measuresreferred to in this Bill:-

1965-66 ... ... 495,0001966-671.. .... 697,0001967-8.. 747,0001968-69 .. .. .... 804,000

Total .... .. ... 2,743,000

Since 1959 the contribution to the PoliceDepartment in respect of the cost of col-lecting metropolitan motor vehicle licensefees has stood at £120,000 per annum.With the growth in vehicle numbers andsteep rises in salaries and wages since1959, this contribution falls well short ofactual costs of collection now estimatedat £225,000 on 1964-65 levels.

As costs in excess of £120,000 becomepart of the State's outlay on social services,it is highly desirable to keep the excessto a minimum, and it is for this reasonthat this Bill proposes an amendment tosection 14 (2) of the Traffic Act so as toempower the Minister, as from the 1stJuly, 1966, to deduct the full cost of col-lection from metropolitan license fee col-lections before the balance is distributed.

Summarising, the measures in thisBill and the Road Maintenance Bill wouldachieve the following main objectives,which have been listed in what is believedthe correct order of priority:-

(a) Avoid any reduction in the State'sspecial rant because of a rela-tively low level of motor taxation.(This reduction could be in excessof £1,000,000 Per annum.)

(b) Attract additional Commmon-wealth road grants amounting to£3,776,000 over the next fouryears (includes 1965-66).

(c) Provide additional funds for roadworks of approximately £8,000,000over the next four years (includes£3,776,000 from the Common-wealth subparagraph (b) ).

It has to be borne in mind that the im-position of the revenue-raising measuresreferred to in this report do no more thancall on the motorist and road hauliers inthis State to make a contribution similarto that being made in other States for theconstruction and maintenance of roads.

TwoAct in

1.

other small amendments to thethis Bill provide for-Moneys collected by the MainRoads Department for overloadpermits to be paid into the MainRoads Trust Account. This Is forthe purpose of meeting admini-stration costs and for charges in-curred in providing enforcement.Revenue from this source Is ap-proximately £35,000 per annum

2342

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.1

at present and the cost of operat-ing the heavy haulage squad isabout £18,000 per annum and it isstill rising.

2. Permit local authorities to spendrevenue from license fees on re-Paying capital moneys borrowedfor road construction and road-making plant and also time pay-ment for the Purchase of roadPlant.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr.Hawke (Leader of the Opposition).

ROAD MAINTENANCE(CONTRIBUTION) BILL

ReturnedBill returned from the Council without

amendment.

MARRIED PERSONS ANDCHILDREN (SUMMARY RELIEF)

BILL

Second Reading

MR. BOVELL (Vasse-Minister forLands) [3.12 pm.): I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

This Bill has been passed in anotherplace and its main Purpose is to consoli-date in one Act the maintenance provi-Lions of the Child Welfare Act, 1947. theMarried Persons (Summary Relief) Act,1960, the Interstate maintenance RecoveryAct. 1959, and the Reciprocal Enforce-ment of Maintenance Orders Act, 1921.It is Proposed to effect this by reposingthe Jurisdiction with regard to the mat-ters covered by those Acts in one courtof summary jurisdiction.

It is now Possible to make maintenanceapplications under any one of the fourActs consecutively and, in some cases,concurrently, as a refusal under one ofthem of the order sought is not a bar toan application under another of them.

Further, It appears ideal that the Child-ren's Court should exercise a jurisdictionof a corrective nature only, both as re-gards children and adults. Members willappreciate that affiliation proceedings-those brought to establish the paternityof, and to make provisions for, the main-tenance of illegitimate children-involveadults only and there is no argument fortheir being brought in a children's court.Again, in any situation where two or morecourts are able to make maintenanceorders, the systems of accounting have tobe multiplied, leading to wasteful and,in some cases, unwieldy procedures.There are cases in existence under whicha person is making periodical paymentsto both the Children's Court and the Mar-ried Person's Court. Without making any

change of consequence in the existing law,this one measure will eliminate all thoseundesirable features.

Succeeding Governments since 1963have contemplated bringing down such ameasure, but circumstances militatedagainst and even Prevented this. I pausehere at this stage of reading my noteson this Bill to query the year 1963 whichhas been mentioned, because there hasonly been one Government in office since1963.

Mr. Evans: That refers only to succeed-ing Governments in other States.

Mr. BOVELL: I thank the member forKalgoorlie, and I think his interpretationis correct. I did not want to convey anywrong information to the House.

Mr. Graham: We will call You the rev-erend Minister in a moment.

Mr. BOVELL: I do not know why theDeputy Leader of the Opposition is smiling.

Mr. Tonkin: It is a very welcome changeof attitude.

Mr. BOVELL: The next part of my notesexplains the position because it states thatthe several States and the A.C.T. have,since 1961, been working on a measure tobring uniformity for maintenance legis-lation in Australia. Whilst this State hasnever been wedded to uniformity and cer-tainly never committed itself to uniformityin every aspect of this subject, it was clearthat in one field we would have to con-form. That is the field of reciprocal en-forcement of maintenance orders, inter-state and overseas, because, without uni-formity, these provisions become-as, in-deed, they have in the past-unworkableor. at best, difficult to apply.

Deliberations on these uniform Provi-sions, unfortunately, were protracted andit was not until late last year that theywere finally settled, with the result thatthe AC.T., Queensland, South Australia,and Tasmania have introduced their mea-sures this year only. N.S.W. and Vic-toria managed to secure the passage oftheir Bills at the end of last year.

In this State, we were faced with amore difficult task than that of repeal-ing one Statute and re-enacting another.Owing to the intricate overlapping of ourcurrent Statutes, we found ourselvesplaced in the position of having to amendboth the Child Welfare Act and theGuardianship of Infants Act, 1926. Thelatter presented little difficulty but theformer contained provisions which, al-though the same in their ultimate effect,were based on different legal concepts andneeded to be adapted before they couldbe transposed to another Statute. Addedto this, the Child Welfare Act was thesubject of an inquiry relating to the pun-ishment of, and the publication of pro-ceedings with regard to, juveniles. Thecommittee appointed for that task has

2344 [ASSEMBLY.]

only recently been able to submit itsrecommendations, with the result thatwork on the Child Welfare Act Amend-ment Bill was delayed and, as a con-Sequence, the completion of the subjectBill was also delayed. I mention this onlyby way of explanation to members of thelateness in Presenting a Bill of this magni-tude, at this stage of the sitting.

Fortunately, the Bill contains very fewnew legal concepts. The greatest changethat the Bill makes is that of incorporat-ing the provisions of 129 sections existingin the four Acts I have mentioned in anew measure of 111 clauses and such fewchanges as there are, need not, in my view,engage the House as long as might firstappear. I shall now proceed to examinethese changes in general terms.

Members will find an interpretation thatoriginally appeared In section '74 of theChild Welfare Act as "confinement ex-penses" and now appears in the Bill as"Preliminary expenses." The relief givenby this interpretation has been extendedbeyond that now applying as it makesProvision for the maintenance of themother of an Illegitimate child two monthsPrior to, and three months after, her con-finement. The existing provision in theChild Welfare Act provided for mainten-ance two months after confinement only.This is, in any event, merely an enlarge-ment of the discretion of the court.

As the law now exists, parties to aPolygamous marriage cannot obtain relief.This means thnt the State may be facedwith the necessity of giving assistance tothe wife of a Muslim marriage, say, with-out any recourse against her husband.This, of course, gives him an advantagenot enjoyed by the husband of a Christianmarriage. All States have now adopteda Provision to be found in this Hill wherebysuch Persons do not escape their obliga-tions.

The Bill then proceeds to take in all theexisting provisions of parts f1, MT, and IVof the Married Persons (Summary Relief)Act, with some necessary additions.

As the provisions of the Guardianshipof Infants Act will not be included in thismeasure, it has been found necessary toinclude a provision allowing persons, otherthan parents, to apply for the custody ofa child or children. However, this provi-sion is restricted by requiring those per-sons to obtain the leave of the court toinstitute proceedings so as to eliminatethe Interfering busybody. This is a neces-sary and, at the same time, a workableprovision.

Following this, members will find thatthree clauses-i?, 18, and 19-take oversections 68. 69. '73. and 74 of the ChildWelfare Act. These relate only to illegiti-mate children, because children of thefamily are already covered by the preced-ing clauses taken from part MT of theMarried Persons (Summary Relief) Act.

Next we find new provisions relating tothe enforcement of orders by attachmentof earnings. These are to be found inpart V of the existing Act, but have nowbeen amended in conformity with thoseto be found in the Matrimonial Causes Act.1959, of the Commonwealth. As the Statecourts are already enforcing the latterprovisions, it would be an anomaly tohave different Provisions in our own Acton the same subject matter. All Stateshave subscribed to this view. The bigchange, of course, is that whereas ourexisting attachment-of -earnings provisionscan only be imposed with the consent ofthe person whose earnings are to beattached, in the new provisions that per-son will have no say in the matter If heis a persistent defaulter. This is regardedas a much more realistic approach.

The power of the court to require adefaulter to enter into a recognisance withsureties, if necessary, for the payment ofmaintenance, has been widened. This isnecessary in a large State such as this.and also to cover cases of persons leavingthe State perhaps for overseas, withoutmaking adequate provision for the pay-ment of maintenance.

One of the biggest changes is to befound in part V of the. Bill. This re-Places the Interstate Maintenance RecoveryAct, 1959, and the Reciprocal Enforce-ment of Maintenance Orders Act, 1921.As stated earlier, we took a big part inthe framing of these provisions whichwill virtually be identical in every Stateand territory. They are designed tostreamline what were very tedious and ill-functioning provisions in the variousStates. I am hopeful that the House willsee fit to adopt this part in toto as it isintended that it will operate throughoutthe Commonwealth next January.

Parts VI, VII, and VIII of the Bill re-quire little comment as they provide are-enactment of those parts in the MarriedPersons (Summary Relief) Act, 1960. 1must mention the inclusion in part VII ofthe provisions of section 73 of the ChildWelf are Act which prohibit the adjtidg-ment of a person as the father of anillegitimate child on the uncorroboratedevidence of the mother, or where themother is a common prostitute.

Another effect of the Bill would be tomake the putative father of an illegitimatechild a compellable witness, at the instanceof the complainant. This is the positionin the United Kingdom, but there is somedoubt as to whether this is the case here.It is not a provision that would be abused.as a complainant would not generally bewell advised to call the defendant as herwitness. On the other hand, the strict ruleas to the requirement of corroborationmakes this an equitable provision.

Finally, the Bill contains a provisionthat does not now exist, whereby the wifeof a deceased husband can recover arrears

2344

IThursday, 11 November, 1985.1 24

of maintenance, in respect of any period UPto six months prior to his death, by actionagainst his estate. The only provision atall similar to this is to be found Ini theTestator's Family Maintenance Act, 1939,and this Is not applicable in all case.

Other than the matters that I havedetailed, the Bill can be taken as makingno revolutionary changes, and I commendit to the House.

Mr. Evans: As there are III clauses inthe Bill will you agree to an adjournmentof the debate for one week?

Wr. BOVELL: Yes.Debate adjourned for one week, on

motion by MrV. Evans.

TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENT BILL(No. 3)

Second ReadingDebate resumed, from the 9th Novem-

ber, on the following motion by Mr. Craig(Minister for T!raffc)-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

MR. GRAHAM (Balcatta) 13.26 p.m.):So as to leave the Government in no

doubts as to where I stand, I say emphatic-ally that I am wholeheartedly opposed tothe Principle and to the provisions of theBill. In addition, even if I had somedoubts in my mind, or if I were disposedto support it, I would still ask for thelegislation to be rejected. I do not thinkany complaint can be levelled at the latterobservation.

I have before me the ParliameutanjDebates of 1957, which contains a debateon a similar matter. Several distinguishedmembers of this Chamber, one being noless than yourself, Mr. Speaker, com-plained, when a proposition for voluntaryblood testing for alcoholic content wasintroduced, that insufficient time was givento enable the necessary inquiries to bemade, as only a period of one week wasavailable between the introduction of theBill and the resumption of the debate.

In the present case this legislation wasintroduced on Tuesday last, and the Gov-ernment arranged the notice paper so thatthe item would come forward virtually asthe first item on the following day. Therewas to be only a period of 24 hours. Theremarks made by Mr. Watts, who was theLeader of the Country Party at that time,are worth quoting.

Mr. Nalder: What did he say when anapproach was made?

Mr. GRAHAM: We shall hear theDeputy Premier later.

Mr. Nalder: You are referring to whathe said at the time.

(84)

Mr. GRAHAM: I shall deal with thatin a moment. I would ask the DeputyPremier to Pay respect to the words of Mr.Watts. On page 3591 he is recorded ashaving said-

Whilst, I am not saying that thisproposition is not proper and practic-able, if one knew the whole of the factsand factors that surround and governit, I am of the opinion that this legis-lature should not be asked-at thisstage at this time of the session-topass such a fundamental change Inour law as this one predicates.

In respect of the Bill before us the Gov-ernment proposed that the debate be re-sumned within 24 hours of its introduction.I asked the Leader of the Opposition toapproach the Deputy Premier to seek alonger adjournment of the debate. He didthat, and the Deputy Premier agreed to adelay of another 24 hours.

This Bill, which I claim to be rnl-con-sidered and panic legislation, is to bepassed through this Chamber without giv-ing the members an opportunity to studyIts full Implications or to make Inquiriesbeyond the confines of Western Australia:and without giving an opportunity for theRoyal Automobile Club, as spokesman forthe motorists, to be consulted, to assimi-late the provisions of the Bill, to convenea meeting, and to arrive at a conclusion.

The Law Society is very concerned aboutthis and no opportunity is given to thatsociety. The medical profession, of course,is going to be placed in a most invidiousposition. Again the matter has not beenreferred to those people; and certainlythere has been no opportunity for a meet-ing of that organisation or the others tobe held and for members of the opposi-tion-Indeed, all members--to approachthem with a view to ascertaining theirviews and discussing the proposition.

Mr. Craig: The intention of the Bill hasbeen public knowledge for months past.

Mr. Bickerton: But not the Implicationsof It.

Mr. Craig: The Implications apply thesame as the Intentions.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Bill is now avail-able to us and we know for certain whatis Involved. Before, we did not.

Mr. Craig: The Bill only puts into wordsthe Intention made public months ago.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister's attitudedoes him no credit. We would expect, then-as we were aware of the fact that theGovernment was going to meddle-therewould be no need for an adjournment atall. We could Just carry on the debate.

Mr. Craig: We are not meddling at all.Mr. GRAHAM%: We could go straight on

with the Bill because we were told theGovernment was going to do somethingabout it. This Bill-there is no question

2345

2348 [ASSEBMLY.)

about it-bits at the fundamental rightsof the individual citizen. It hits at hisbody-his person-because he is to be comn-pelled, under the threat of a fine-a mini-mum fine of £50 to anything ranging to£150-to agree under certain circum-stances to his body being punctured andblood taken from him-

Mr. Craig: What about the body liemight have impaired for the rest of hislife; that is immaterial?

Mr. GRAHAM; That interjection showsthe Minister does not know very muchabout his Bill.

Mr. Craig: I know more than you do.The SPEAKER (Mr. Hearman): Order!Mr. GRAHAM: He does not know very

much about the Bill apparently. But ifhe will restrain himself a little, I will ex-plain his Bill to him. We have had ex-perience before of a Minister knowingnothing of the Bill he is introducing. Hemerely reads a piece of paper depart-mental officers have prepared for him.

Mr. Craig: Not in this ease.Mr. GRAHAM: Because the Minister

has the satisfaction of the numbers-theautomatic majority vote-it does notmatter whether he understands the Billor not. He reads from a piece of Paperand then expects Parliament to followhim.

Mr. Craig: In this case the Minister wasreading from a piece of paper preparedby the Minister himself.

Mr. GRAHAM: If the Minister werefamiliar with it, it would not be necessaryfor him to read it word for word.

Mr. Craig interjected.Mr. GRAHAM: I have done my best in

the last 48 hours, having regard for thenumerous other obligations I have.

Mr. Craig: Go on, Carry on.Mr. GRAHAM: I think it is generous of

the Minister to give me an opportunityof continuing, considering I have the floor,having been called by you, Mr. Speaker.

*Mr. Lewis: You have put him off now.Mr. Craig: I am sorry.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am endeavouring tobe as brief as I possibly can In regardto this matter. The Ministry obviouslyregards this Bill as being one for a re-laxed state of mind to find a certainamount of humour in the introductionof the legislation which, I say to theMinister, has been introduced in no otherParliament in the British Commonwealthexcept the Victorian. I suggest to himthat Victoria is a very poor example. Youare aware, Sir-particularly you onaccount of your interest in traffic-thatwestern Australia became a shambles inthe matter of the give -way-to-the-rightrule of the road because a Country Party

Minister in charge of traffic followedwhat Victoria had done, Victoria was outof step with every other part of theCommonwealth, and so we had chaos andconfusion for a period of some 18 monthshere in Western Australia; and the effectsof it have not Yet worn off-far from it.I say there have been many deaths -andserious accidents because the late Mr.Perkins blindly followed the course laiddown by the State of Victoria.

Surely as this legislation has not beenundertaken by any other Parliament thanthe State of Victoria, we are entitled to alittle more seriousness in respect of itsconsideration than has been displayed bythe !.4inister and, unfortunately, by someof his supporters this afternoon. Thislegislation is to compel a person to blowinto a certain mechanical device or, asstated previously, submit himself to theletting of blood.

I am interested in the wording of theBill. Perhaps the Minister could givea little thought to it. It states that amember of the Police Force, when he hasreasonable grounds for believing that aperson has committed an offence, and soon, may require that person to submithimself. What is meant by that term"requhre"? Does he ask the person tosubmit? Does he arrest the Person? Doeshe forcibly put him in a vehicle and trans-port him to a place where a test can beundertaken? Surely the implications ofthis are exceedingly serious.

it is all right for the Minister to shrughis shoulders as if to say. "What the heck,anyway?" If the person resists in anyway there is a penalty of £50 to £150.Three cheers for the T7reasury! This istampering with an individual's person andcompelling him to go somewhere underthe threat of a fine, This Is somethingintroduced by a Government that Pratesloud and long about its concern for in-dividual freedoms. This Bill, I repeat,is transgressing what ought to be theinviolable rights of citizens of the com-munity.

It is obvious that the Government isbecoming desperate because of the in-creasing road toll. In other debates wehave suggested many steps the Govern-ment could take and should take; but no!This Government virtually does nothingin the way of preventing the accidents,as they are called, from occurring. Ratherdoes it prefer to use the big stick; thatis to say, step up the fines and increasethe penalties generally; and now there isthis process. These are steps which aretaken after the crashes have occurred,and I think the Government would be welladvised to pay attention to endeavouringto prevent some of the accidents thattake place.

I risk the accusation of tedious repeti-tion, but I emphasise that the Ministercould devote some of his energies to the

2346

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.1 34

give-way-to-the-right rule. The ChiefJustice of Western Australia In the lastfew days in his interpretation of the lawas it stands at present, has adjudged aperson, whose vheicle was hit on the leftside, as being two-thirds responsible; andthe vehicle driver who failed to give wayto the right, as being only one-third re-sponsible for the accident. That is theposition that has been reached; and Iimplore the Minister and the Governmentto do something to clarify our laws, andto make them simple of assimilation sothat in the basic laws, all motorists worthyof the name might go through the variousprocesses automatically Instead of havingto bring out a rule book or slide rule orsomething of that nature in order to as-certain whether he is in the right or thewrong by proceeding under certain cir-cumstances.

As I have said on other occasions, thebehaviour of a motorist at the wheelshould be as automatic as the changingof gears and other movements throughwhich the driver goes and which are donemore or less unconsciously without anydeliberate thought being given to them;and so it should be in connection with themotions of the vehicle at Intersectionsand at other places. I know It is fashion-able to give great emphasis to alcohol inrespect of road accidents, and I am nothere to condone the actions of anyone whohas over-imbibed to the extent that he isincapable of properly handling a vehicle.

Mr. Craig: You would not be trying toprotect him though, would you?

Mr. GRAHAM: No; but there Is a wayof going about things, and I have alreadyindicated I strongly disapprove of what theGovernment proposes here. I asked somequestions of the Minister only recently andit is amazing the Information that is con-tained in the replies. For the 12 months,the 1st July, 1964, to the 30th June thisyear, there were, in this State, 15.668 ac-cidents. Of that number 224 were directlyattributable to the intoxication of driversand pedestrians, and 15,444 were attri-butable to other causes--less than one in70 attributable to alcohol.

Mr. Craig: Hut It could have been 100lives.

Mr. GRAHAM: If two vehicles crashInto one another surely they crash with animpact that Is no greater or no less be-cause a person happens to have beendrinking alcohol. I repeat: Less than onein 70 was attributable to alcohol, yet wefind this Government rushes forward withthis piece of legislation giving nobody anopportunity of properly considering itsimplications.

The Government, of course, excuses it-self in respect of the extreme steps it Istaking on the basis that this will serveas a deterrent. The Government hangs

people In this State on the grounds thatsuch action is a deterrent; whereas it knowsperf ectly well that it has not proved tobe a deterrent in any part of the world,at any time; and the same with regardto this. The positive approach Is to dosomething to prevent accidents from hap-pening and collisions from occurring.

The Government is tackling the problemfrom the wrong end. In very many re-spects the measure is balf and halt, be-cause It does not matter how severe anaccident is, as long as nobody is Injuredto the extent that he requires immediatemedical attention. So there could be twodrivers, as full as the proverbial boot, whosevehicles collided with one another but,provided neither of them were injured tothe point of requiring Immediate medicalattention, the breathalyser does not comeinto use-the compulsory provisions of themeasure do not apply.

Mr. Craig: Yes they do. Read your Bill!Mr. GRAHAM: I have read the Bill.Mr. Craig: Well, read it again!Mr. GRAHAM: It states-

Where, arising out of the use of avehicle or an animal on a road, aperson suffers a fatal injury or suffersa bodily injury of such a nature as torequire immediate medical attention,then, a member of the Pollee Forcemay, if he has reasonable grounds forbelieving ...

this, that, and the other, go ahead withthe Job of using the brea~thalyser and thetaking of blood samples. But the proposi-tion is, of course, that If a person requiresimmediate medical attention-

Mr. Craig: That is in the case of apply-Ing a blood test where no breathalyser isavailable.

Mr. GRAHAM: Strangely enough it isnot, because it continues by saying, "Sub-ject to subsections (3) and (4) of thissection, require that person to submit him-self for an analysis of his breath foralcohol." So I leave it to members tomake up their awn minds as to who hasbeen reading the Bill and who has not.We can have the situation where there isa minor crash but some injury has teensustained and then the procedure comesinto operation.Sitting suspended from 3.45 to 4.6 p.mn.

Mr. GRAHAM: It surely is anomalouswhen one considers that there could betwo accidents of an exact pattern, but inone case, miraculously, nobody is injured;whereas, in the other, unfortunately a per-son is, or several persons are, killed, or atleast seriously injured, and It would onlybe in the latter case that any of the pro-visions of this Bill become operative.

Mr. Craig: That is not so.

2347

2348 ASSEMB3LY.]

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister will have todo something better than merely deny thefact.

Mr. Craig: The breathalyser can be em-ployed in any case of suspected drunkendriving whether there is an accident or not,and the blood test would be applied only inthe case of an accident or bodily injury re-quiring immediate medical attention, andwhen no breathalyser is available.

Mr, GRAHAM: We can deal more withthis matter at a later stage. I am very inter-ested at the introduction of proposed newsection 32B. because after using the wordsjust uttered by the Minister it goes on tosay that where a person suffers aL fatalInjury, or suffers bodily injury of such anature as to require immediate medical at-tention, certain things will happen. Whois going to decide whether 1, who may beinvolved in an accident, require immediatemedical attention?

A nervy, hysterical type of person mightdecide I needed medical attention urgently,if there was a little cut on my finger,whereas somebody else, who is tough in,every sense of the word, would probablyfeel there was nothing to worry about inthe case of the person who was injured.

Mr. O'Connor: If he did not bleed.'Mr. GRAHAM: Even if he did bleed,

somebody must decide whether the personrequires immediate medical attention.Who is the person qualified to do that?Is that to be left to the police officer? Ishis department to assume a new role?

Mr. Craig: The pollee must have rea-sonable grounds to suspect that a person'sdriving ability had been affected by alcohol.

Mr. GRAHAM: I know. But before anyof this procedure comes into operationthere are certain requirements set out atthe top of page 3. Amongst them is therequirement that there must be bodilyinjury of such aL nature as to require im-mediate medical attention. I again posethe question: Who is to decide whetherimmediate medical attention is necessary?

Mr. Craig: I should imagine it would beobvious in most cases.

Mr. GRAHAM:* Who then wouid decide?Would it be the Police officer?

Mr. Craig: I should imagine so.Mr. GRAHAM: It strikes me he would

be usurping some of the functions of amedical practitioner. For that reason Ifeel there is some very slipshod wordingin the Bill as currently before us.

Mr. Craig: You can delete the words"medical attention" if you like when weget Into Committee.

Mr. GRAHAM: We will have a lank atthat. I hope the majority of memberswill agree to reject the Bill in iota.

Mr. Craig: I do not think so.

Mr. GRAHAM: I ama expressing myhope.

Mr. Craig: It is a pious hope.Mr. GRAHAM: I wonder how many

members of the medical Profession wouldbe prepared to take blood from a personwho objected to its being taken. indeed.in all seriousness, I would like to hearfrom the member of this Chamber who ishimself a medical practitioner. All Parlia-ments, and Governments of all politicalshades, have been rather sensitive, I amsure, of operations or of any action beingtaken in respect of a person contrary tohis will. As is known, it is in those placeswhere it is permitted that it has taken agreat deal of persuasion and agitationbefore Parliaments would agree-and I donot think there are many of them whichhave agreed-to allow a medical prac-titioner to give, compulsorily, a bloodtransfusion; and we must remember thatthe reason for a blood transfusion is tosave a life.

Yet we and medical practitioners demurat the law saying that somebody otherthan the patient should have a voice andbe permitted to make the decision. ThisBill does not necessarily involve the savingof a life or the preventing of a death. Yetwe find that a doctor is expected to playhis part when a person is taken to him tohave blood taken as a prelude to ananalysis, even though that doctor isviolently opposed to such action. I wonderwhat would happen if he refused.

Contrary to what we read in the news-paper this morning attributed. I think, tothe Secretary of the Law Society, that theGovernment in 195? proposed compulsoryblood tests for alcoholism-and I thinkthat society is a little uncertain about this-I want to say here and now that theGovernment did not propose compulsoryblood tests: it introduced legislation whichleft the matter optional. Any person couldplease himself whether he allowed thosetests to be taken, and he had a perfectright of refusal without any prejudice tohimself whatever. That, of course, is stillthe law.

Naturally enough, if I am either takento a medical practitioner, or go to one ofmy own volition and make a request, themedical practitioner will take the requiredspecimens of blood. But, frankly. I cannotvisualise members of an honoured pro-fession tampering with a person's body inthis respect against the will or wish of theperson concerned.

I wonder whether the Minister has beenin consultation with the Western Austrat-lian Branch of the Australian MedicalAssociation, and whether he has receivedan assurance from that association thatall, or practically all, of the medical prac-titioners of this State would be preparedto undertake this blood letting, contraryto the wish of the subject concerned.

2348

[Thursday, 11 November, l965.] 34

After all, if 50 per cent, of them refused-and we must have regard for the countrycentres where this will be the practice, andbecause the distance of 25 miles is men-tioned, and because there may be a doctorin one Centre and not another for perhaps100 miles, or several hundred miles--andthe medical practitioner regards it asanathema to take blood from a personcontrary to his wish then, of course, thislegislation would be meaningless in thetar-flung Parts of Western Australia, andwould have no effect whatsoever. Weknow that unfortunately the majority ofaccidents occurring in this State take placein country areas.

I have already mentioned how Parlia-ments. have hesitated in the matter of sur-gical or other work being undertaken ona patient contrary to his wishes, even ifit involves a matter of saving his litfe, yetit is proposed a person should be finedsomewhere between £50 and £150 becausehe refuses to permit this violation of hisrights to his own body that the State,through the medium of a medical practi-tioner. wants to invade-that is, invadehis privacy. Unfortunately, I did not havean opportunity of seeing the measuringdevice or breathalyser-as it is called-in operation the other evening, but I aminformed that there is quite an amountof regulating and adjusting necessary be-fore a proper test can be taken.

Mr. Craig: Balancing.Mr. GRAHAM: Yea. It is not unknown,

of course, for a mechanical device to tailin some respect and there is such a thingas human error as well.

Mr. Craig: But the suspect can stillhave a blood test it he desires.

Mr. GRAHAM: He can if he desires, buthe has no alternative but to accept oneof these or else: and the "or else". is apretty costly business.

Mr. Bickerton: flow could he have ablood test if a doctor were not available?How much trouble will the pollee go toto obtain a doctor for him?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is the point.Mr. Craig: He only has to go four hours.

Under the Act at the present time thepolice have to offer every co-operationto try to meet the wishes of a suspecttowards getting a blood test.

Mr. GRAHAM: There is a place knownas Guowangerup where, members will re-call, there is quite aL considerable distanceto the nearest medical practitioner.

Mr. Craig: There is no need to havea blood test if they cannot have it withinthe four-hour period.

Mr. GRAHAM: That means if a personIs as drunk as Clohe in the out-blockswhere it takes more than four hours toreach a medical practitioner, be does nothave to undergo anything.

Mr. Craig: That is so; it says so in theBill.

Mr. GRAHAM: So you see, Mr. Speaker.this Bill more and more, as I lndTcatedearlier, is a hit-and-miss affair.

Mr, Craig: It is not a hit-and-missaffair; it is quite clear.

Mr, GRAHAM: It is so clear that the firstoperative clause has not been read, orunderstood, or appreciated, by the Minis-ter.

Mr. Craig: Don't blame the Bill; blameyour interpretation of it.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have read from theBill itself. Let us have a look at thelighter side of this Bill, if one can havesuch moments in respect of proposedlegislation that has a serious impact. Itwill be found-and I will give the Properreference to the Minister in a moment-that if a person is walking behind a flockof sheep-driving them along the road-and he has had a few beers and happensto stub his toe on a log, or something ofthat nature, he can be compelled to gothrough the processes set out in this Bill.

Mr. Craig: This is so. He can lose hislicense even though he has not got one.

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, because he hap-pened to kick his toe on a roadway.

Mr. Durack: That is not right. It isin relation to a vehicle or animal whichwas the cause of the injury.

Mr. GRAHAM: Let us look at it. Itis on page nine of the Bill and is as fol-lows:-

to such an extent as to be incapableof having proper control of a vehicle,horse, other animal or drove of ani-mals.

Is the member for Perth satisfied?Mr. Durack: No.Mr- GRAHAM: Either words do not

mean what they should mean, or some-thing is awry.

Mr. Durack: You are talking about 32B.Mr. GRAHAM: I am discussing the

whole of the measure. I want the Min-ister to be emphatic on the point.When a member of the Police Force re-quires a person to submit himself for ananalysis of his breath for alcohol, whatis involved in that word "required"? Hemerely makes a request?

Mr. Craig: Yes; and if he refuses tocomply he leaves himself open to a con-viction.

Mr. GRAHAM: At what stage. it Iam a long way from a medical practi-tioner; and does the policeman take me tothe medical Practitioner in his car or inmy car?

Mr. Craig: Now you are going intotechnicalities.

2349

[ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. GRAHAM: What if I am suspectedof alcoholism?

Mr. Craig: If a policeman suspects thata person is affected by alcohol and he Isgoing to prefer a Charge against him,naturally he wants something to substan-tiate it other than his own interpretation.Under this Bill he will take him for ablood test if a breathalyser is not avail-able.

Mr. GRAHAM: He will arrest me andtake mue to the medical Practitioner oroperator of the breathalyser.

Mr. Craig: A traffic inspector can arrestyou and take you to the Police.

Mr. GRAHAM: Having taken me andI refuse to undergo this test, I am subjectto a penalty.

Mr. Craig: Yes; and when you go be-fore the court you can prove the policeofficer did not have reasonable groundsto suspect you.

Mr. GRAHAM: If I have not had adrink, but because of my behaviour amember of the Police Force thinks I amunder the influence of liquor, is my carto be left 20 miles in the country on theside of the road?

Mr. Craig: The same applies to anyarrest in any circumstances. The policeare able to cope with the situation.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not think it isvery satisfactory. Whilst we can deal withparticular aspects in the Committee stage,if It be the pleasure of this House thatthe Bil goes as far as that, the objectionis, as I stated earlier, the manner in whichthe Bill is introduced-a measure that hasa serious impact, and I do not think any-body will deny that-and the lack of op-portunity given to all of the very manyparties Interested to examine its provisionsin order to give a firm opinion. After all,the Bill was available only as from yester-day morning-

Mr. Craig: That is so.Mr. GRAHAM: -as far as the general

public is concerned, Secondly, surely werequire far more time: and we should,with the greatest reluctance, contemplateagreeing to a measure which is largely amoral issue; namely, of a person beingcompulsorily operated on, even if it be aminor operation, contrary to the wish ofthe person concerned. If we reach thestage of gradually whittling away thatright of a person to his own body andwhat happens to it-excepting, of course.the matter of taking his own life-thenthere will be a whole lot of our conceptsthat will have to undergo some radicalthought and change.

There has been no case made out toshow why, although liquor Is admittedlya factor and an important factor,those who are under its influence to evena minute degree should be singled out forthis indignity. I have indicated already.

so far as can be established by the police.that less than one case-where there arecasualties-in 70 Is directly attributable tothe consumption of liquor.

Mr. Craig: The other day the figuresI gave You showed that 44 per cent. ofthe fatalities revealed traces of alcohol.and so much Per cent, of excessive alcohol.

Mr. GRAHAM: That could be so, andno doubt it is so, but I am quoting fromfigures the Minister himself gave me.

Mr. Craig: Quote the casualty figures.

Mr. GRAHAM: On the 28th October-Mr. Bickerton: Do these figures only

include drivers?Mr. GRAHAM: Pedestrians, drivers, and

everyone else. That was quite a perti-nent interjection. The driver could bePerfectly sober and have three or fourcompanions in the car who were palpablyunder the influence of liquor; and if thereIs an accident and all are injured, thenthere are four more to go on to the Min-ister's tally, but their alcoholic conditionhad nothing whatever to do with the ac-cident. Then, of course, there are somany cases-indeed I am aware of one-where a motorist had had a little morethan was good for him under the circum-stances, but he had followed the book ofrifles-that is to say, the traffic regula-tions, to the nth degree. He bad not de-parted in any way whatsoever, but thedriver of another vehicle backed out of adriveway immediately into him. Thishappened to be a lady driver, but that isonly incidental to the story. It was ob-vious to everybody, and indeed to thePolice, that the woman was completelyresponsible for that accident, but this per-son of whom I spoke was returning fromhis club, and because of his appearance,etc., he was charged with having drivena vehicle whilst under the influence ofliquor which, of course, was perfectly true.but It was the stone cold sober personwho was responsible for that accident.

Notwithstanding that situation and thenature of the figures the Minister hasquoted, he apparently considers we shouldpersevere with the Bill. It is quite aneasy matter to get worked up and hysteri-cal over a certain issue. That Is why Iam not in the least bit influenced by pollsamongst the public. There is a smallone in the Press this afternoon whereInterviews were given to a certain numberof citizens and they have expressed them-selves.

When deaths are occurring on the road,as unfortunately they are at the presentmoment, nearly everybody with a consci-ence and sense of responsibility is wor-ried about it. and naturally enough isprone to support any move that Is de-signed to reduce the road toll. But, asI have already indicated, this does nothing

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.] 2351

to prevent anything: all it does is toimpose certain obligations after the acci-dents have occurred.

I submit to the Minister that there aremany People leaving places such as clubs,hotels, ballrooms, banqueting rooms, andthe rest of it-particularly with the onsetof the festive period, which is now thesituation-and after leaving them perhaps50 per cent, or more of the drivers ofvehicles, if hit by another vehicle-albeitthe driver of the second vehicle had had noliquor whatsoever-would, if a breathalysertest were given them, be found to be underthe influence of liquor for the purposes ofthis law.

I am also wondering about the efficacyof the particular machine. I do not in-tend to mention the name, but there isone man who, if the breathalyser machinewas operated correctly the other night,would require somewhere in the vicinityof 30 glasses of beer and six glasses ofsherry before he reached that .05 per cent.

So I would suggest that in respect tothat particular test there was somethingwrong with the machine. That particu-lar member is not likely to admit hiscapacity for drink to anyone. I wouldsuggest that it would be something far lessthan the amount I have mentioned whichwould be required to make him incapableof properly driving his motorcar.

As the efficacy of the device dependsupon the adjustments made to it, we canreadily appreciate that a person will beaccused and found guilty because of thereading of this machine.

Mr. Craig: The machine is calibrated, ofcourse.

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; but the reading onthe machine is dependent on the adjust-ments which are made to certain deviceson it.

Mr. Craig: 'The adjustments are made infront of witnesses. It is a pity you didnot see the machine when it was demon-strated; I feel sure you would have beensatisfied.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am speaking entirelyfrom observations made by those who wit-nessed the machine.

Mr. Craig: It is unfortunate that youdid not see the machine in operation. Ifeel that you would have no fears.

Mr. GRAHAM: I missed the demonstra-tion because of serious family illness.

Mr. Craig: You should reserve yourjudgment until you have seen the machinein operation.

Mr. GRAHAM: Surely if the Minister isbeing as considerate as that he shouldhave given us an opportunity to makesome inquiries from Victoria and otherplaces where the breathalyser is used. Itis used in a number of places, but Itsuse Is not compulsory.

Mr. Craig: Its use is compulsory in Vic-toria.

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; but in many placesit is used on a voluntary or optional basis,as were blood tests in this State, up todate.

Mr. Craig: In the cases where the testis not compulsory, if the test is refusedthe person's license is automatically sus-pended.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister ex-pressed regret that I did not have an Op-portunity to study the machine. The pointI am making is that there is more to bestudied than the breathalyser, and ap-propriate opportunity should be given tothe citizens of Western Australia for suchstudy. This differs from the attitude ofthe Commonwealth Government in thematter of big trading concerns being al-lowed a period of some two years in whichto study the Implications of restrictivetrade practices legislation.

Mr. J. Hegney: They were given four orfive years.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am talking about theterms in the principal Act. With respectto this legislation we are given a periodof two days only. It is morally wrong.The Commonwealth allowed the businessinstitutions several years, as against thelack of concern shown to the citizens ofthis State.

Mr. Craig: What will the business con-cerns get out of this?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is my point.

Mr. Craig: I cannot see your point.

Mr. GRAHAM: For the slow learners Iwill repeat what I said. Where the in-terests of large trading concerns andmonopolies are involved, the Liberal-Country Party Government allows severalYears for legislation to be studied and fordiscussions to be entered into. But withrespect to a matter which potentially anddirectly affects every citizen in the com-munity, and one which in my view violatesthe sacred rights of the citizens, the Gov-ernment allows two short days In whichwe can pursue our inquiries.

What a contrast in outlook and approachthat is! So I hope that those on theother side who have joined with thespokesmen for their parties in talking sofreely about the rights of the subject andthe freedom of the people and the neces-sity to shun anything which suggested in-terfering with those basic rights, will al-low their consciences and beliefs to pre-vail rather than slavishly follow the Gov-eminent in respect of this proposal. Inother words, I hope that Parliament, inits wisdom, will reject this Bill which weare nlow considering.

2363 AS DM LY. I

IR. DICKERTON (Pilbara) (4.37 pm.]:I will say at the outset that I do not con-done drunken driving. I have no doubtthat drunken drivers constitute a menaceas far as the road is concerned. Appar-ently the incidence of road accidents is thecause of this measure which isbefore us now. However. I have been un-able to convince myself, in the short timethe BIll has been available to us. that itwill, in effect, do what the Minister hopesit will achieve.

I1 do not think the figures which aregiven to us, judging by those alone, haveproved that alcohol is the cause of as manyaccidents as people would like us to be-lieve. I do not know if It has ever beenproved to us, but some people may bebetter drivers with a proportion of alcoholIn their blood, than without it.

Mr. Jamieson: That has been shown tobe the cas.

A member: It could not be worse.Mr. BICKERTON: I think the accident

rate probably proves that. The Ministergave us some figures and said that one in70 accidents was attributable to alcohol,but there must be many other reasons foraccidents. I have noticed, over the lastfew years, that the other reasons have notbeen concentrated on very much at all.However, great play has been made on theaccidents-the minority of accidents--which have been caused by alcohol, or con-sidered by some people to have been causedby alcohol. If we can reduce the incidenceof alcohol, then it would certainly lessenthe accident rate, but we are doing verylittle, if anything, about preventing theother 69 accidents.

I was also surprised when the Ministersaid, in answer to an interjection whilstthe member for Balcatta was speaking,the percentage of fatalities on the roadattributable to alcohol was somewhere inthe vicinity of 43 per cent. By way of hisreply to the interjection he said that thepercentage did not include only the driversof the vehicles. Is not that giving a falsefigure? I suppose that people hearing thosefigures would think. that 43 per cent. of thedrivers were found to have alcohol in theirbloodstreams, which could have been re-sponsible for causing the accident. Thatis not the case at all. It appears that thepassengers were included.

Mr. Graham: Pedestrians were includedtoo.

Mr. BICKERTONl: As the member forBalcatta has just said, pedestrians wereincluded in the total figure to bring it upto 43 per cent. So I think In all fairnessthe Minister should now acquaint us withthe percentage of drivers who he con-siders had accidents which were attri-butable to alcohol in the blood. We wouldthen be able to tackle this problem in asensible way.

I think the road toll is a shocking thingand I am not trying in any way to decrythis effort to reduce it. We must do every-thing we can In an endeavour to reduce it.F'rom time to time we are given figues,and I think the member for Darling Rangeread out figures covering the years from1960 to 1905, and mentioned the roadaccidents and deaths, Of course, there wasno mention of the population increase or ofthe increase in road traffc. I think thosefigures are not worth the paper they arewritten on unless they are expressed as afactor and a percentage Is given showingthe proportion of accidents: whether, infact, they are being reduced, or whetherthey are increasing. One cannot get theanswer by simply using total figures. Thecar population and the human populationmust be taken Into consideration.

Mr. Jamieson: The accident rate Is re-ducing per 10,000 vehicles.

Mr. BICKERTON: I understand that ifwe were to check the number of roaddeaths which occurred in the days of thehorse and cart, and considered them in pro-portion to the population, the number ofdeaths would be higher. This could be so:I have not had a chance to check thefigures which were given to me. It ispossible because we have better types oftransport in motor-cars which have betterbraking and are more easily controlled, andwe have better roads. Those factors couldhave reduced the accident rate in compari-son with the population and the roadtraffic.

When we look at this problem we musttake a broad view of it. We are alwaysgoing to have a certain number of roadaccidents; that will be extremely hard toavoid.

To mention the member for DarlingRange again, I agree with him when hementioned the education of children atschool. I have always felt that educationin driving and road laws should be part ofthe school curriculum.

Mr. Lewis: So it is. The children havebeen getting it for years.

Mr. BICKERTON: Yes, in a small wayfronm what I understand from may ownchildren. They get an occasional lecturefrom a policeman who drops in for half anhour.

Mr. Lewis: Some youngsters have moreroad sense than the parents.

Mr. BICKERTON: Who is going to arguewith that?

Mr. Lewis: That is the result of theeducation received in the schools.

Mr. BICKERTON: Do you not think thatis necessary?

Mr. Lewis: Of course It is necessary!

2352

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.] 35

Mr. BICERTON: That is what I amsaying. First of anl, let us continue toeducate the children, by all means, becauseit is probably the 13 and 14-year-aids whowill be the ones to have the greatest chanceof reducing the road accident rate, becausethey will be properly taught.

Mr. lewis: The road accident toll is nota matter of lack of knowledge, but ofattitude.

Mr. BICKERTON: If the Ministermeans the causes of road accidents, Ipoint out that if we asked a dozen peopleabout the causes, we would receive adozen different reasons.

I do not oppose the measure on reli-gious grounds or because of the humanrights argument. But the Bill again dealswith a method of detection of crime ratherthan of prevention of it. Pollee forces--not only the Police Force in this State butin other States and in other countries-to my way of thinking always seem toconcentrate far too much on the detec-tion of crime and not enough on the pre-vention of it; and this Bill intends toreduce the number of road accidents bylining people heavily, or gaoling them,after accidents have happened. That ismy main opposition to the measure: andthe member for Baleatta emphasised thispoint.

To give an example of how we alwaysseem to be concentrating on detectionrather than prevention, I wish to citesomething-this does not concern the local]police as what I am about to relate con-cerned another State-that applied inNew South Wales.

1 lived in the town of lithgow, and justoutside the town there was a nice stripof five or six miles of very straight road.and it passed the school. The straightstrip commenced after the road had wan-dered through the Blue Mountains In anarea that was always referred to as the40 bends. So a person having travelledmost of the road in second gear wouldarrive at the top where the road flat-tened out and presented a nice straightstrip. Admittedly at the start of this sec-tion there was a 30-mile per hour sign,but it was rather cunningly concealed be-hind a sapling or something. But the factwas that when a motorist hit the straightstretch he immediately took off.' Thelocal paper even ran a special columnpointing out the revenue that was broughtin from this piece of road. Because of therevenue it produced, It was referred toas the golden mile.

The local police always knew where tohide so that any motorist on the roadwould not see them. That strip of roadmust have lent itself to speed, and theobject of the policeman was to catch themotorist after he had broken the law, orafter he had in fact knocked down a child

crossing the road at the school, or some-thing like that. All this could have beenavoided had there been a notice in largetype to say, "You are approaching thegolden mile. It has produced so much inrevenue over the last 12 months fromspeeding fines." But them people wouldhave said, "The policeman does not catchanyone." I suppose if a policeman doesnot catch anyone, someone Is going toquery whether he is doing his job. There-fore, if we can do more in the way of pre-vention rather than detection, we will getsomewhere in regard to preventing notonly accidents, but crime.

in this case the Minister has broughtdown legislation and he has given us acouple of days in which to have a lookat it. Members must have noticed in thepaper this morning that the Royal Auto-mobile Club is going to hold a meetingnext month to discuss it. That is howwell informed that club is; because theBill will be well on its way by then.

It would help if a simple method of pre-vention could be Introduced--something assimple as this sheet which we have andwhich is rather informative, I refer tothe table that the Minister Presented uswith. It shows the number of glasses ofliquor that have to be consumed to pro-duce a certain percentage of alcohol inthe blood. Surely one way of going aboutthis matter is not to amend the TrafficAct. Would it not be wise to amend theLiquor Act to require that charts of thissort be displayed in licensed premises?Surely that would be doing something to-wards the prevention of accidents.

Do people know how many glasses ofliquor it requires in order for them tohave the amount of alcohol which willmean their being convicted? People whendrinking may not feel Intoxicated, but atleast the publicising of this informationwould give them some Idea of the amountof liquor they could consume before Itwould become dangerous for them as faras a conviction is concerned.

A few members of Parliament, the Min-ister for Police, and the officials dealingwith the breathalyser have seen that in-strument. Surely It could have been ondisplay for 12 months! I cannot see any-thing wrong with a public clinic beingestablished in Perth so that People couldsee the breathalyser in operation; and if,in fact, they consume some drink con-taining alcohol they could go along andtest themselves on the machine. By thismeans we would be getting the co-opera-tion of the public and we would also becarrying out a certain amount of preven-tion.

Mr. J. Hegney:, Educating the people.Mr. B3ICKERTON: Yes; so that they

would not be in the position of beingforced to come within the ambit of thistype of legislation. I wish to deal with

2353

[ASSEMBLY.]

the actual use of the breathalyser whichwas displayed the other night. What themember for Balcatta said is a fact; orI gather the impression, anyway, that thisis a rather intricate piece of machinery.I would say it requires a trained operator.

Mr. Craig: They will be trained opera-tors.

Mr. BICKERTON: it is not as simpleas people would have us believe. With-out knowing the technical reasons, Igathered that the balance of the machineIs one of the most important aspects. Onat least three occasions during the teststhe other night the machine had to bebalanced. One must assume, therefore,that the correct reading of the machineis dependent on the machine being cor-rectly balanced. If it is not properlybalanced, I take it the reading could beinaccurate.

Mr. Craig: That is so.Mr. BICKERTON: Whether it would

be inaccurate in favour of the driver, orthe other fellow, I am not sure,

Mr. Craig; It Is the same as any scales:it has to be balanced.

Mr. BICKERTON: There Is also theneedle which indicates the alcoholic con-tent of the blood stream. A card ispunched, and according to how it ismarked the person concerned will or willnot be up for drunken driving; becauseI believe that once this machine comes intooperation, and the card shows more than.15 per cent., the person concerned canpretty well save himself the trouble ofgoing to court; it will be an automaticconviction.

I noticed on a couple of occasions thatthe needle had to be manually pushed backto the starting point prior to tests beingtaken. I do not know whether this wasnormal practice, or not. Perhaps some-thing happened while the testing was go-Ing-on. I mention these things to showthat this machine is not something thatone can lust sit in front of and operate.I would say a person would have to bealert to see that all stages of the opera-tion are carried out.

I refer now to the table supplied bythe Minister which says that a reading of.05 per cent. does not show intoxication. Areading of .1 per cent, means that a personcould be intoxicated, and a reading of 1.5per cent-I mean .15 per cent, shows thathe is Intoxicated.

Mr. Jamieson: If it is 1.5 per cent., heis embalmed!

Mr. BICKERTON: Yes. I supposethese readings are based on medicalopinion, and one can only assume that anintoxicated person would be incapable, in-the minds of medical men, anyway, ofdriving a motorcar. I would also saythat if, in fact, the person concerned was

intoxicated, he would be incapable of per-forming many other actions. The Min-ister might agree with me that such aperson would be incapable of carrying outin a competent way the duties he wouldnormally perform. He would possibly beincapable of composing a letter or doinganything else of that nature which hecould normally do when not intoxicated.

I want to ask the Minister for Police:What guarantee has the person who istested got that the operator of themachine has not, in fact, got a contentof alcohol in his blood which could impairhis ability as an operator? If we are tohave this machine, it is essential thatthe operator should have a breathalysertest before he tests the other person.After all, this is a pretty important mat-ter.

Mr.. Craig: OhIMr. BICKERTON: It Is all right for

the Minister to shrug it off, but the personbeing tested could be charged with man-slaughter.

Mr. Craig: You are implying that thepolice officer would be inebriated beforehe made the test.

Mr. BICKERTON: I am not Implyinganything; I am just saying that the opera-tor of the machine must, in order tooperate the machine, be his usual com-petent self; and it is reasonable to say thathe at least should be made to prove thathe is, in fact, not in a state of intoxica-tion. It is simply a matter of the operatorhaving a breathalyser test before testingthe other person.

This could happen with blood tests.Take a small country town where thereis only one doctor. Doctors have relaxa-tion; we all know that. They go to thebowling club or some other place, the sameas we all do. What is the position if ablood test is ordered and we find that thelocal doctor, who is off duty at the time,is having a few beers with his friends?Surely if we agree that alcohol can impairone's competency, it Is reasonable that theperson conducting a test should himselfbe required to be tested for alcohol priorto testing the person concerned. I thinkthis is a very important point, and I donot put it forward lightly at all.

As far as I am concerned, if I could beshown by a test to be guilty or innocentof a certain charge, I would want to knowthat I was being tested by one who wasnot only a competent operator, but whoalso had all his faculties about him at thetime he was conducting the test.

The Minister said the person beingtested could have a, witness present. Whatdoes the witness do? The person beingtested does not know anything about themachine, and I do not think the witnesswould know any more about It. This. Ithink, Is a very important point, becauseif we are deciding whether someone was

[Thursday. 11 November, 1965.1 2355

drunk in charge of a car, the decisionshould be given without doubt. Thisbrings me to the matter of the machineItself. Here we have to rely on themanufacturer who manufactured it andwho maintains it is foolproof. It is withthe operator that the human elemententers. If, unintentionally, he forgot toadjust the small vernier that brings themachine into balance, it could give anentirely different reading to that whichit was intended to give. For that reasonI put that point forward.

As I said before, I am not convinced theBill will immediately overcome all theproblems that confront us in our effortto reduce the road toll, and reduce thatpercentage of accidents which Is normallyattributed to the consumption of alcohol.Also. I do not believe the measure willremain in its present form. Once Itbecomes law I feel certain it will not belong before the .15 percentage providedin the Bill to convict a person is reducedprobably to half. We know that inVictoria. from which State the Ministerobtained his Information, the percentagefigure is .08.

If this legislation Is to be put intooperation and we do not see an immediatemarked improvement in the accident rate,that percentage figure will be reduced byamendment. If we find that some Peopleprefer to risk paying £150, or even £50.rather than take the breathalyser test-and I am sure there will be a number ofsuch people-it would not surprise me ifthe Penalty were Increased to £300. Atpresent the Bill provides that a breath-alyser will be installed in various policestations. I understand that in Victoriaand In certain States of America they aremobile, so I can foresee a day fastapproaching, if there is no reduction inthe accident rate, when police patrol carswill be equipped with them. If this isdone we will be reaching the stage whenthe individual will have less and less sayas to where that little purple arrowfinishes up on his card.

If the result of the test, having provedto be positive, were not so serious, perhapsI would not be so strong in my oppositionto the Hill, but it seems that once havingbeen Presented with one of these littlecards the individual has no appeal. AsI said before, I think I am fairly rightin my view that one might waste one'stime even appearing before a court be-cause the judgment has already beengiven. Whatever ease one might putforward, naturally, if it were not ignoredcompletely, would be greatly nullified bythe introduction of this legislation, becauseone would automatically be declaredguilty, despite the fact that a mistakemight have been made by the operator.

I am not overkeen on that type oflegislation, although, by the same token.I am not overkeen about people driving

vehicles while under the influence of liquor.Uf only the Minister could convince theHouse that the Bill would reduce the num-ber of accidents which occur on our roads:if he could prove that in other partsthe use of the breathalyser has assisted inreducing the accident rate, we would havesomething to go on; but we cannot getthat undertaking. Until such time asthat undertaking can be given we shouldhave more time to consider the measure.

The sensible thing to do would be topostpone the consideration of the Billuntil the next session of Parliament. Ido not think it will reduce the accidentrate to any great extent. Since the foun-dation of Western Australia we havemanaged without this measure, and surelywe can still manage without it for an-other eight months.

If the Bill were dropped betweennow and the next session of Par-liament, we could study the provi-sions contained in measures that havebeen introduced in other countries. Wewould have the opportunity to study theVictorian set-up more closely with theassistance of medical and legal experts onthe subject. Would not the postpone-ment of the Bill until the next session beworth while when it is considered that.by rushing the legislation through to thesatisfaction of the Minister we put intooperation something which perhapsshould never go Into operation?

Mr. Rushton: They are introducingsimilar legislation in the United Kingdomnow on this matter, are they not?

Mr. BICKERT01N: I do not know; but ifthey are I am sure the members of Parlia-ment In the United Kingdom have hadmore time to study it than we have had.I think it was the Minister who said,"Everyone knows this has been comingfor a long time.' If we had to Investigateall the rumours we hear about legislationto be brought before the House wewould have no time for anything else.Surely one cannot investigate anythinguntil it has been submitted In a concreteform. If the Minister is serious in whathe has said, one would have thought hewould circularise members of Parlia-ment to let them know the details ofthe Bill and give them some Idea of whata breathalyser looked like; and not onlymembers of Parliament, but also mem-bers of the public.

I do not think it is fair, In the dyinghours of the session, to expect members tosay. "Yes, we will give a decision on thisBill' when, in fact, if a decision weregiven in favour of it, 75 per cent, of themembers who voted for the Bill wouldnot know-with all due respet-what theywere voting for, because they do not knowthe element of error with the machine. Ido not think any member knows anymore than those who saw the machine inthe Speaker's room. In my opinion no

(ASSEMBLY.]

one can vote on a Bill of this nature whenthe extent of his knowledge is merely that,plus what he has read in the Press aboutthe Victorian system.

I will not delay the House further, ex-cept to repeat that I think the Eml shouldbe Postponed until the next session ofParliament.

MR. DURACK (Perth) (5.8 p.m.]: Irise to support the Bill. In doing so, Iwould refer firstly to some of the remarksmade by the member for Ealcatta. Duringthe course of his lengthy speech there wasonly one statement with which I areed;namely, that this is a most important Bill.In my view this is the most important BillI have had to address myself to since Ihave been In this House.

Undoubtedly the measure does affect theliberty of the subject and, in my view ofpolitics, that is the most important matterwe have to consider in this House. How-ever, I do not agree with the member forBalcatta when he states that the effects ofthis Bill will strike at the Inviolate andfundamental rights of the individual. I donot accept that description of its serious-ness. Nevertheless, as it is a Bill whichaffects the liberty of the subject. I regardit as a serious measure; as one whichshould be carefully considered, and itsconsequences fully appreciated.

Whilst recognising this, I do not see whythose consequences cannot be readily ap-preciated by the study of the Bill in thetime that has been available to us andwhich will still be available before themeasure passes through this House. apartfrom its consideration In another place.Actually, the Bill is very short. Its maineffects are clearly set out in new section32B on page 3 which is to be insertedIn the Traffic Act. Subsections (1) and (2)of that proposed new section set out thecircumstances in which a compulsorysobriety teat can be required.

Subsection (1) requires such a test to betaken in the case of fatal injury or bodilyinjury requiring immediate medical atten-tion if a member of the Police Force hasreasonable grounds to believe that theperson to be tested was the driver of thevehicle or animal that occasioned, or ofwhich the use was the immediate or proxi-mate cause of the injury.

Mr. Graham: You agree with my state-ment, then, that this breathalyser opera-tion only comes into being when a personhas been killed or injured?

Mr. DURACK: No, I do not, and I willtell the honourable member why In aminute.

Mr. Graham: I will be pleased to listen.Mr. DEIRACK: Secondly, that the police

officer has reasonable grounds for believ-ing that the person to be tested wasaffected by alcohol to the extent that his

ability to control the vehicle may have beenimpaired. The other circumstances inwhich a compulsory breath analysis may berequired are those contained in subsection(2) of proposed new section 323, whichimmediately follows. Fr'om line 20, on page3, that subsection reads as follows:-

Where a member of the Police Forcehas reasonable grounds for believingthat a Person has committed an offenceagainst section thirty-two of this Act-

Section 32 is the one which. in commonparlance, makes it an offence to drivewhilst drunk.

If a member of the Police Force has rea-sonable grounds for believing that thatoffence has been committed, he may requirethe person concerned to submit himselffor a breath analysis. So it is quite clearfrom the reading of subsection (2) of pro-posed new section 32B, that if a Policeofficer has the suspicion that an offence ofdrunken driving has been committed eventhough no accident has occurred, or if anaccident has occurred which has notcaused any bodily Injury, he may, undersubsection (2), require such person to takea breath analysis by the breathalyser.

It is true that if, under subsections (3)and (4) of proposed new section 32B it isnot possible to give that person a breathanalysis, he can be required to have acompulsory blood test only if there hasbeen a fatal injury or a bodily injuryrequiring medical attention. That is theonly distinction between the two situa-tions.

Mr. Tonkin: If this is so important, whynot make It obligatory and not discretion-ary?

Mr. DURACK: I do not necessarily agreethat this is a valid distinction, but I wouldbe quite prepared to go along with therequirement for a compulsory blood test ifa person was suspected only of drunkendriving. This Bill Is giving even greaterconsideration to the liberty of the subjectin regard to the compulsory blood test.

Mr. Tonkin: This leaves it to the dis-cretion of the Policeman.

Mr. DURACK: It does not. His rightsin the matter are clearly defined in section32B30) and (2).

Mr. Tonkin: This says a member of thePolice Force may, and not shall, requirethat person to submit himself for ananalysis.

Mr. DURACK: He has a discretion onlyin favour of the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Tonkin: Which subject?Mr. DtIRACK: The discretion is all in

favour of the rights of the individual. Thepolice officer may not require a personto undergo a breath analysis or blood test,unless certain circumstances exist, andmust exist objectively-and not exist in

[Thursday, 11 November, 1905.] 35

his own mind. The Provision states amember of the Police Force may requirea Person to submit himself for analysis ofhis breath for alcohol if-

(a) he was the driver of a vehicle oranimal that occasioned, or ofwhich the use was an immediateor proximate cause of, the injury;and

(b) he was, at the time of the occur-renee 01 the injury affected byalcohol to the extent that hisability to control the vehicle oranimal may have been impaired,

The police officer has to be satisfied thatthose two requirements existed before hecan require a person to undergo the test.That is how the provision protects theliberty of the individual.

The meaning of reasonable and prob-able cause is well known to the law. Themeaning of reasonable and probable causeon the part of police officers has been thesubject of numerous decisions by thecourts. I quote from Halsbury's Laws ofEngland, Third Edition, Volume 25. page358, in which the following is stated:-

Meaning of reasonable and probablecause. Reasonable and probablecause has been said to be an honestbelief in the guilt of the accusedbased on a full conviction, foundedupon reasonable grounds, of the exist-ence of a state of circumstances,which, assuming them to be true,would reasonably lead any ordinaryprudent and cautious man, placed inthe position of an accuser, to the con-clusion that the person charged wasprobably guilty.

That shows how careful a police officerhas to be in applying the provisions ofthis legislation.

I said at the commencement of myspeech that I approached this subject withconcern and caution, because it affectedthe liberty of the subject. on studyingthe Bill I have firmly come to the con-clusion that the liberty of the subject ispreserved within the terms of this Bill.We have to address ourselves to the ques-tion as to whether It is Justifiable to in-fringe on the liberty of the subject to theextent which this Bill does. it Is uin-doubtedly true that in certain circum-stances, carefully circumscribed by theBill, a person is obliged to undergo somerestriction of his liberty.

What restriction does that amount to?It simply amounts to, in the case of breathanalysis, the person having to go alongwith the police officer. He is not at thatstage under arrest, but he has to accom-pany the police officer to be tested withthe equipment, or to permit a doctor totake a sample of his blood by one of thesimplest operations which the medicalprofession performs- I am sure my col-league, the member for Wembley. would

agree. That Is the only restriction on theliberty of the subject required under thislegislation.

We should ask whether this Is Justifiedfor the purposes of the Bill. This legisla-tion is not designed to provide the PoliceForce and the community with interestingstatistics on the causes of road accidents.but it no doubt will have that beneficialeffect. After the legislation has been inoperation for some time, I am sure theMinister for Police will be able to answerwith a great deal of accuracy the sort ofquestions to which he has been subjectedduring this session, and to which themember for Balcatta referred.

Mr. Grahamn: Do you know what effectthis legislation has had in Victoria?

Mr. DURACK: If the honourable mem-ber is referring to the effect on the stat-istics, it obviously must have improvedthe statistics available in connection withthe causes of road accidents.

Mrt. Graham: Do you know what effectthe introduction of breath analysis in Vic-toria has had on the number of road acci-dents attributable to the drinking ofliquor?

Mr. DURACK: Personally I do not knowwhat has been the deterrent effect withthe introduction of compulsory breathanalysis. I do not know how one candefinitely come to such a conclusion ifthere has been a continuous increase inthe number of accidents. One would notknow whether there would have been moreaccidents if such legislation had not beenin force.

Mr. Jamieson: You have not read theVictorian Act.

Mr. DUIRACK: I am perfectly convincedthat the evidence which is available, andwhich has been quoted by the Minister,does indicate there Is a real connectionbetween the consumption of alcohol andthe road accident rate.

Mr. Fletcher: We all know that.Mr. DURACK; I am glad to hear that

remark. By providing for the type ofevidence to be made available in thecourts, this Bill should, in my view, havea deterrent effect on people who are dis-posed to drive motorcars after they haveconsumed quantities of liquor. I am nota prophet in these matters; I may beproved to be wrong in that regard; but Ido consider this matter to be sufficientlyserious as to cause us to experiment withlegislation such as this, In the hope thatit may-as I think it will-have a deter-rent effect.

We have been supplied by the Ministerwith a table showing the relationship be-tween the consumption of alcohol and thelevel of alcohol In the blood. That tableshows the quantities in pints of alcohol.

ii

2357

(ASSEMBLY.]

Perhaps it would be more impressive toconvert the quantities into the consump-tion of middies of beer, which I under-stand are 7-os. glasses. If one does thatone finds that before the average personcomes within the prima facie range ofguilt under this legislation-as indeed itdoes under the old Act-be has to con-sumie at least 14 middles of beer.

Mr. Jamieson: You need to be corrected.That Person must consume 14 middieswithin a certain time.

Mr. DURACK: That is so. It wouldsurprise me to learn that any member ofthis House extended sympathy of any kindas far as the application of the law wasconcerned, to a person who drove hisvehicle on the road after he had consumed14 middles of beer, or the equivalent Insome other type of liquor. I think theonly real concern members would havewas for a person who had consumed somequantity of liquor, which might havebrought him into the impairment rangeset out by these figures. Although wehave heard considerable discussion fromsome members who have spoken so far onthe sad effect this legislation will haveon the drunken driver, I draw attentionto the tact that such a person has toconsume 14 middies or more of beer withina fairly short space of time, and veryshortly before he drove his car.

Referring to the deterrent effect, notonly have we had figures from the Ministeron this subject, but for some years I havebeen aware of other figures. As long agoas 1957 the Police Surgeon (Dr. Pearson)wrote an article in the medical journalof Australia, setting out a table to showthe connection between fatal accidentsand the presence of alcohol in the bloodof the persons who were killed. This tabledeals with motor vehicle drivers, andshows results of blood tests performed on51 drivers, Of those, 22 or 43.1 per cent.showed a positive result under the bloodalcohol test, of the 51 drivers tested, 39per cent. showed a blood alcohol contentof more than .1 per cent., which is gettingInto the range of drunken driving.

The report also revealed that of 70 motorcycle riders tested, 35 per cent, showed apositive alcohol result; and of 80 pedes-trians tested, 47 showed a Positive result.I repeat that of the 51 motor vehicle driv-era tested by Dr. Pearson, 22 or 43 percent. had a positive alcohol result, and 39per cent. had a .1 per cent. alcohol con-tent.

Mr. Bickerton:, How can you prove thatcaused the accidents?

Mr. DURACK: I do not know what ex-perience the honourable member has hadwith questions of proof. When one is con-cerned with litigation between two driversinvolved in a collision, and there is proof

of the lack of sobriety of one of the driv-ers, it is not difficult to find elements inhis driving which support fully the con-clusion of the test.

Mr. Jamieson: You are not taking anynotice of the instances given by the mem-ber for Balcatta.

Mr. DtIRACK: I have had some profes-sional experience on what are known asrunning-down cases. In fact, for manyyears, I have spent a good deal of my pro-fessional life on these cases. It is veryclear indeed that a, great number of acci-dents are caused by people who have beendrinking to some extent, and by otherswho have been drinking to a great extent.

Mr. Graham: The figures which youhave quoted show that more of those whowere killed had not been under the in-fluence of liquor.

Mr. DURACK: There might be wore,but not a great many more. The resultwas that 43 per cent. were affected byalcohol.

Mr. Graham: As against 57 per cent.of the drivers who were not. You do notseem to worry about this 57 per cent.

Mr. DURACK: I am just as worriedabout others.

Mr. Graham:, All the emphasis seems tobe against the minority.

Mr. DURACK: Unlike the member forBalcatta, I am worried about the 100 per-cent.

Mr. Bovell: Hear, hear!Mr. DURACK: This Bill deals with

nearly 50 per cent. of the 100.Mr. Graham: Forty-three per cent.Mr. Bovell: If you can save 1 per cent.

by this means, it will be an achievement.Mr. Graham: it never did in Victoria,

according to tonight's paper.Mr. Boveil: Don't be such a pessimist!Mr. DURACK: Apparently the member

for Balcatta is going to make anothersecond reading speech.

Mr. Graham: I wish he could!Mr. Bickerton: Hear, hear! It would be

more interesting.Mr. DURACK: This Bill provides a

deterrent against the cause of up to 50per cent. of accidents in this community,according to the statistics we have.

Mr. Graham: You cannot prove that.Mr. DURACK: Naturally the statistics

we have are not at all adequate todaybecause, in the nature of things, thesestatistics have not been available. It is onlysince 1957 or 1958 that we have had eventhe provision of voluntary blood testing.The availability of voluntary blood teatshas, undoubtedly. facilitated the proof ofdrunken driving and the cause of acci-dents by the effect of drink. There is no

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.12.5

doubt about that in my mind at all. Ithink the member for Pi'lbara has recog-nised very clearly that if anyone goes intocourt showing a result in the blood alco-hol test of .15 or more, then he has verylittle chance of succeeding in his defence.

However, as I have said, I am not veryconcerned, and I am sure very few peopleare, with what happens to a man whodrives on the road after having consumed14 middies of beer or more. The trouble,of course, with the voluntary test is thatthe test is only taken by someone, as arule, if he thinks he is going to gain somebenefit in his defence by having had thetest; and it does not work fairly to bothsides.

There is really nothing mare unsatis-factory, either to prosecution or defence,than the sort of evidence normally avail-able on an issue of drunken driving. Thelegal profession has been complaining foryears about the sobriety tests given by thepolice. I have had a lot to say about themprivately from time to time and I thinkanyone who has experienced them realiseswhat a hit-and-miss horse-and-buggy-agemethod it is of Proving a person is drunkor otherwise.

Here we have a scientific method ofestablishing a fact, and this is highlyacceptable not only in legal proceedings.but in the community at large. Here wehave a simple, scientific, and fairly positiveway of Proving it and I feel that itsintroduction will have the most highlybeneficial effects not only on the questionof proof of guilt or innocence, but also asa deterrent to people who know that ifthey have been drinking and they drive acar, the question of how much they haveconsumed may well be available againstthem in a court of law. The very fact thata person knows that, must, In my sub-mission, have a beneficial effect on himin regard to the consumption of liquorbefore he drives.

There has been some reference by boththe member for Balcatta and the memberfor Pilbara to the device itself-the breath-alyser. They query whether it is going towork; and, of course, this is somethingwith which we would naturally be con-cerned. Here again, though, we are notintroducing something that has -not beentested in other places. The breathalyserhas been working in some States ofAmerica and in Victoria, and it Is a well-known scientific instrument. It Is no goodthe member for Pilbara, or any of us inthis House, adjourning this debate so wecan make a technical investigation of thebreathalyser. 'That is something we haveto rely on the scientists and the manu-facturers to do. It is an instrument whichhas been developed and tested and appliedfor many years in other places. I feelquite satisfied it will be able to be appliedhere.

On this matter I find there is adequateprovision for the protection of the indi-vidual who has had to undergo such atest. Dealing with the proof of the test,on page 8 of the Bill is the following:-

(3) In any proceeding such as ismentioned in subsection (1) of thissection, evidence by an authorisedperson that--

(a).(b) the breath analysing equip-

ment was, on the occasion ofits use, in proper workingorder and was operated byhim, in the prescribed man-ner; or

(c) at the material time, all regu-lations relating to analyvsisby breath analysing equip-ment were complied with,

is prima facie evidence of that fact.It is prima fade evidence, but the fact

is that the evidence must be given by anauthorised person; in other words, hecould he subjected to cross-examination.If there is any reason to believe that themachine was not working, or was not beingoperated properly, he could be subjectedto cross-examination in the proceedings.Furthermore, subsection (4) of proposednew section 32B provides that a personcan ask for a blood test if an analysis ofhis breath has been made.

Mr. Graham: That is not a concession:that is the frying pan or the fire.

Mr. DURACK: I am not myself veryhappy with the phrase in that provision,"effect shall be given to the requirement"and I propose in Committee to move theinsertion of words to ensure that effectshall be given to the requirement by themember of the Police Force who is con-cerned. That will Impose upon the policeofficer a statutory duty to carry out thewishes of the person being tested, and ifthe Police officer does not carry out suchrequest, he will be committing a mis-demeanour under section 177 of theCriminal Code, because he would bebreaching a statutory duty Imposed uponhim.

Therefore, in support of this Bill. I haveset out some considerations which I thinkare relevant. I agree it is a matter ofgreat importance. It Is aL Bill which affectsthe liberty of the subject, but the libertyof the subject although it is fundamentalto our way of thought and life, and al-though it is precious to me, and I certainlydo not yield to the member for BalcattaIn regard for the liberty of the subject,or anyone else for that matter-

Mr. Graham: You had better do some-thing about it then.

Mr. OtIRACK: -I believe the Bill hasmany safeguards for the protection of theindividual's flberty. There are many laws in

2359

[ASSEMB3LY]j

our community which affect the liberty ofthe subject and which do so in the over-riding interests of the community itself.The power of arrest is a very much greaterpower of a police Officer than anythinggiven to him under this Bill. The policeofficers have been able to arrest underBritish law for centuries. There is notonly the power of arest one can think of.There has recently been a power given forcompuldsory medical attention to be givento infants whose parents or guardians havesome religious quirk which prevents it:that is another precedent that clearlycomes to mind.

There are countless precedents for somerestriction being placed on the liberty ofthe subject. We could not operate a systemof law and we could not live as an orderedsociety unless there were some restrictionson individual liberty. The restrictions im-posed by this Bill are of the most minorcharacter, as I have already indicated.There is no question really here of legalis-Ing assault and I would, in my concludingremarks, like to refer to something whichappeared in The West Australian thismorning emanating from the Law Societyin opposition to this Bill.

I do not know how fair it is to attributeanything that appears in The West Aus-tralian to the Law Society as such. Ap-parently the secretary of the society wasasked to make some comment on the Bill.He could only make a personal comment.There was no suggestion that what ap-peared in this report was the officialopinion of the Law Society or anything elsethan a guess by the secretary as to whatlawyers may think.

Mr. Graham: Shame on the Governmentfor rushing it then!

Mr. IDtIACIC: I have spoken to a num-ber of lawyers concerning the basicprinciples of this legislation: and althoughopinions may differ-naturally opinions onthis sort of legislation would differ in anysection of the community-it Is nottrue to say by any means that the LawSociety or the legal profession as such--orany significant proportion of it-would beOpposed to this legislation. It was merelysome guesswork by the secretary based onwhat some lawyers thought of legislation in1957. That was years ago, long before wewere faced with the crisis we now have be-fore us on the moad accident rate.

What lawyers may have thought in 1957is not necessarily what they would thinknow in relation to the problem we facetoday. I do not think any serious attentionshould be given to what appeared in thepaper this morning as being the opinion ofthe Law Society.

Mr. Graham: Don't you think theyshould have time?

Mr. DURACK: For what It is worth, asmembers will have gathered, I do not be-lieve there is anything wrong in principlewith this legislation.

Mr. Graham: That is only party loyalty,of course.

Mr. DURACIC: There may be somne fea-tures of it which, as I have indicated al-ready, could be amended; but in principleI am entirely in support of compulsion forbreath analysis and for blood analysis inthe circumstances as set out In this Bill.

Mr. Tonkin: Has the honourable mem-ber any views on whether the evidenceshould be excluded from civil cases?

Mr. DURACPC: Yes. I entirely agreewith its exclusion in civil cases.

Mr. Tonkin: Why?Mr. DURACK:, Because this Bill is con-

cerned with providing a deterrent to anoffence. It is concerned with criminaljurisdiction, and that is all.

MR. EVANS (Kalgoorlie) [5.43 p.m.]:The honourable member who has just re-sumed his seat spoke at some length aboutthe liberty of the subject, and this wouldseem to be a good starting point for me.I would add that I have come to adiametrically opposite conclusion to thatof the honourable member.

It is a well-known and highly-respectedprinciple of law that the liberty of thesubject and the convenience of the policeshould never be weighed in the balanceone against the other.

This measure before us contains provi-sions enabling the police under certaincircumstances to compulsorily require per-sons to undergo breath analysis or bloodtesting. I am fortified in my conclusionthat this Bill Presents a very serious af-front to the dignity of man or the libertyof the subject by certain remarks whichare reported in the Parliamentary Debatesof Victoria, the 1961-1962 session, volume261, at page 1280, during the debate whichpreceded the introduction of similar andoriginating legislation In the State of Vic-toria. These extracts are given in a speechmade by The Hon. J. W. Galbally. Hequoted from a report of evidence givenby the Solicitor-General of the State ofVictoria to a Select Committee of theCommonwealth Senate on Road Safety in1959, the Solicitor-General being Sir HenryWinneke. Sir Henry Winneke appearedbefore this Select Committee of the Senateof the Commonwealth of Australia, bydirection of the Victorian Governmentand the extract quoted by Mr. Galballyreads as follows:-

Extracts of evidence Of Sir HenryWinneke, LILM., Q.C., Solicitor-Clen-eral of the State of Victoria, beforethe Senate Select Committee on Roadsafety, 1959.

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.1 36

Sir Henry appeared before the cowl-anittee by direction of the VictorianGovernment to put forward legal andpolicy aspects of the problem, on whichlatter he was, In fact, the spokesmanof the Government.

The extracts, which deal withchemical tests for unfitness to drivethrough excessive consumption ofalcoholic beverages...

Sir Henry Is quoted as saying-The system would violate the basic

common law principle that an ac-cused person cannot be compelled toincriminate himself. There is astrong body of thought that says,"Why insist on that? It does not mat-ter much." Perhaps it does not mat-ter much in this class of case but itis necessary to think of this matter onbroad lines. It Is necessary to thinkof the precedent that would be setHaving infringed this principle, itmay be possible for the traffic law towork fairly well; but, later on, peoplemay say, "What is wrong with apply-ing it to something else? If It Is goodfor this class of case, why is it notgood for a man charged with murderto be compelled to make a statement?"It Is the same common law principlebehind both things, and I suppose thatcommitting a murder is more seriousthan causing a motor car accident.Where do you stop once you start?

I need not say that I view this Bill witha great deal of distaste and I object moststrongly to the principle contained In themeasure. Compulsion, whether to ac-quire a breath analysis or a blood test of avehicle driver, is something to which Iobject and a law such as this, as I haveendeavoured to show from the remarks ofthe Solicitor-General of Victoria. wouldcompel a citizen to give evidence againsthis own best interests. It would compelhim to Incriminate himself and, In doingso, would be a violation of a principle ofEnglish law that in the past has beenhighly respected. My cardinal objectionto the Bill is that It ravages this principle-no person should be compelled to in-criminate himself.

I should also like to quote a significantremark made by the Minister in chargeof the legislation in the Legislative Coun-cil of Victoria. At the time he was theMinister for Housing and his name wasThe Hon. L. A. S. Thompson. This state-ment was made in November, 1961,' and isto be found on page 1133 of the Parlia-mentary Debates of Victoria for the session1961-62. That Minister said, or admitted,that breath alyser tests are approximatelyas accurate as blood tests.

That brings me to the point about whichI asked the Minister a question this after-noon- Under certain circumstances, where

a breathalyser instrument is not available,a driver is required, under this proposedlaw, to undergo a blood test as the alterna-tive. As a result of that one would ex-pect a very high correlation between theresults, under controlled circumstances andIn respect of the same subject, obtainedby a breathalyser and a blood test. TheMatter became the subject of the ques-tion I addressed to the Minister this after-noon, which was as follows:-

(1) Is he aware Of any authoritativeteats that have been conducted tocorrelate the findings of a"Breathalyser" test and a bloodtest of the same subject undercontrolled circumstances?

(2) U so, would be please Inform theHouse of same?

The Minister replied that be was awarethat apparently there were authoritativetests, but In actual fact he did not givethe House much information at all: be-cause he said the information on the cor-relation was contained in a report on pro-ceedings of the Third International Con-ference on Alcohol and Road Traffic heldin London in September, 1982. The Minis-ter concluded by saying that the reportwas available to me if I wished to see it.However, of course, that is a little late forthe purposes of this debate,

Mr. Craig: There is only one memberin the House who would be able to inter-pret it and that would be the member forWembley because of the Medical terms.

Mr. EVANS:, Apparently the Minister forHousing in the Victorian Parliament wasnot able to interpret it either because hesaid the breathalyser tests were approxi-mnately as accurate as blood tests. Whenwe have a measure which provides thatunder given circumstances a person shallundergo a blood test, when the facilties;for the other test are not available, onewould expect-and It would be reason-able to do so-that the results from onetest, on the same subject and under con-trolled circumstances, when compared withthe result from the other test would notbe almost the same-they should be Iden-tical. The Minister has not convinced meby referring me to a report. Had theMinister given me one instance in his replyI could have been satisfied on 'the point,but I am not satisfied because If one testIs not available, and the other test has tobe taken, the results from both testsshould be identical and not merely al-most the same. I am far from coni-vinced.

Mr. Craig: The courts have satisfiedthemselves.

Mr. EVANS: The courts? Where?Mr. Craig:, On the accuracy of the

breathalyser.Mr. EVANS: What courts?

2361

2362 (ASSEMBLY.)

Mr. Craig: In Victoria. Mr. Craig: I do not think it was, butMr. Bickerton: They should satisfy us

not themselves.

Mr. EVANS: The courts have satisfiedthemselves?

Mr. Craig: Yes.

Mr. Graham: No; they have just ac-cepted it.

Mr. EVANS: If the courts in Victoriaare satisfied why does not the Ministerquote the information obtained from thatState instead of referring me to a reportof the proceedings of the Third Inter-national Conference on Alcohol and RoadTraffic held in London in September, 1902?Presumably evidence is obtainable fromVictoria, and it would have been better toquote that instead of referring me to thereport of a conference which was held inLondon. Victoria is only a few thousandmiles away and results in cases as recentas 1965 could be quoted.

Mr. Craig: That was because it was feltthat the International Conference wouldcover more views than if we quoted Vic-toria alone. I thought that would give youmore satisfaction.

Mr. EVANS: But it was not in time forme to use it in this debate. I now posethis question: ,If the measure has not beenconceived in haste-and the Minister de-nied that it had been-and it is of suchmomentous importance-we all agree onthat point-why did not the Governmentannounce this as a matter of high policyat the last State elections? This has beenintroduced in its first year of office andI boldly say the Government has no man-date from the people to introduce legisla-tion of this nature.

.Mr. Craig: Tkhe Premier said in his Policyspeech that he was going to get tougherwith drunken drivers.

Mr. Jamieson: You have already donethat.

Mr. EVANS: I repeat: It is my firmopinion that this legislation has been con-ceived in haste.

Mr. Bickerton: It should be stillborn.

Mr. EVANS: The first inkling I had thatsuch legislation was contemplated, andwould be Introduced, was in June followinga meeting of State Ministers for Trafficheld in Perth. Am I right?

Mr. Craig: There was a meeting here.

Mr. EVANS: On the night of the firstday the meeting was held it was announcedthat the Minister for Traffic had giveninformation to the A.B.C. that WesternAustralia was going to introduce suchlegislation, which had been discussed atthat particular meeting.

I cannot remember exactly.

Mr. EVANS: No other States haverushed In and introduced it, and presum-ably they were all represented at thatmeeting.

Mr. Craig: Prom memory I do notthink we even discussed it at the con-ference.

Mr. EVANS: Prm memory, an an-nouncement was made to that effect, andthat is where I heard it.

Mr. Craig: I am sure we were notguided by the conference on this matter.

Mr. EVANS: Apparently no other Statehas worried about it because none of them,with the exception of Victoria, has rushedin and introduced such legislation.

Mr. Craig: They are not as intelligentas we in this State.

Mr. Graham: The Minister has a senseof humour.

Mr. EVANS: Presumably a. breath-alyser test and a blood test measure thestandards of alcohol content in a givenvolume of blood; they do not purport tomeasure the standards of driving ability.It is common knowledge that a givenquantity of alcoholic beverage will havefar more effect on one individual than pos-sibly it will have on some other individual.Many of us would have personally en-countered the type who is known as atwo-pot screamer, and I think it is welland truly established that alcohol canhave varying effects on different persons,depending on their temperament and pos-sibly upon their metabolism.

Yet we find legislation introduced whichwill impose an absolute standard, com-pletely unrelated to one's driving ability.The offence is not performing badlywhile driving a vehicle, but It is hav-Ing an excess of alcohol in one's blood,determined by two tests which are com-pletely unrelated to standards of drivingability.

Finally, I would like to object to one par-ticular provision because I think it Is farworse than any other provision in the Bill-I refer to proposed new section 32C. Itbas been claimed in defence of this Billthat here at last we will have a founda-tion of scientific evidence upon whichlitigation can be determined, Yet newsection 320 reads-

320. (1) Without affecting the ad-missibility of any other evidence thatmay then be given. in any proceed-ing for an offence against this or anyother Act in which the questionwhether a person was or was not, orthe extent to which be was, tinder the

(Thursday, 11 November, 1968.]236

influence of alcohol at the time of thealleged offence is relevant, evidencemay be given of-

I should now like to pass on to para-graph (g) of the first section of that pro-posed new section which reads-.

(g) the finding of a properly qual-fied analyst, based on his analy-sis, the interval of time that haselapsed and the other relevantcircumstances, as to the percent-age of alcohol that was presentin the blood of the person...

And I emphasise-not at the time theanalysis was made by the analysist, butat a time prior to the taking of the sample.How unscientific can one get? Here weare asking an analyst to give evidence afterhaving analysed a sample of blood andarrived at a determination on how muchalcohol was present. He is not beingasked to give evidence as to the deter-mination of the alcohol present in thebloodstream at the time he analysed theblood, but as to how much alcohol wasPresent at a time prior to the sample beingtaken, H-ow scientific is that? It is aboutas scientific and as dubious as a meat pie.That Provision should be expunged fromthe Bill, if the measure ever sees the lightof day, which I hope It will not.

I notice the Victorian legislation which,I suppose, is the putative father of thispiece of illegitimate legislation, is in theform of an amendment to the Crimes Act.It is termed the Crimes Breath Test Evi-dence Act. From a study of the provisionsof that Act, however, I notice there is no-thing which compares with the provision Ihave read, which is contained in proposednew section 32C(1) (g). The Victorianlegislation does not contain any such pro-vision at all.

Having castigated and criticised the pro-posed legislation, I1 claimn that possibly theworst feature of it is the fact that it castsan onus of proof on a person who is ac-cused, not by a human accuser, but bya machine. It is a basic principle ofBritish law that a person Is innocent untilhe is proven guilty. But in this case wedo not have aL human accuser: we have amechanical one in the shape of a breath-alyser machine.

In the case of blood tests, evidence marbe given by a person who has analysed asample of blood that it contains a givenamount of alcohol, not at the time whenit was, analysed, but at a time before thesample was taken.

I find no further words strong enoughto express may great disapproval of thismeasure and therefore my vote will haveto suffice to indicate my strong objectionto this measure.

DR. HENN (Wembley) 16.3 p.m.]: BeforeI begin what I have to say, I would liketo congratulate my colleague, the memberfor Perth, on the excellent speech he madeon this debate.

Mr. Novell: Hear, hear!Dr. HENN: I have rarely heard a more

lucid explanatory speech in this House. Ihave only been here a matter of sevenyears, but I would say that the honour-able member's speech was an excellentone. I am most grateful to him for clear-ing up a number of the points that wereworrying the member for Balcatta withregard to the clauses of the Bill. Fortu-nately, I need say nothing on that aspect,because it has been very well dealt with.

Mr. Graham: Would you like a descrip-tion of your speech after it is finished?

Dr. HENN: It may be true that themember for Balcatta did not know of thepossibility of this legislation being intro-duced into the House until some very re-cent time. But I1 think I remember seeingmention of it in the Press more thantwo or three months ago. So it has beenmore or less public knowledge for sometime.

When I heard about the matter I wasvery interested, and I wrote to the Pro-fessor of Forensic Medicine at St.Thomas's Hospital in London. I did thatfor two reasons: The first reason is thatI studied medicine there a number of yearsago, and the second reason is that St.Thomas's Hospital has always dealt withthe Metropolitan Police Force. In fact,it has looked after the members of thatforce, and has had close liaison with them.Apart from this, the senior members ofthe staff have an equally close liaison withScotland Yard.

So, as I have said, I wrote to the Pro-fessor of Forensic Medicine there, and re-ceived the following reply, which I thinkmembers might be interested to hear. Itis not a very long letter, and is in replyto an inquiry of mine as to whether theProfessor had any information on thebreathalyser. The letter reads as fol-low:-

Dear Dr. Henri,Your letter of 2nd September has

been Passed on to me by ProfessorCurran, the Professor of Pathology, asI am responsible for Forensic Medicineat St. Thomas's.

I have little personal experience ofthe use of breath analysis for alcoholbut I have made enquiries both amongmy forensic colleagues and also offriends at Scotland Yard.

I gather there are five or six typesof machine for breath analysis allusing different methods and of vary-ing complexity in use. (The term"Breathalyser" actually refers to a par-ticular machine and is, I believe, atrade name). The general consensus

2363

2364 ASSEMBLY.]

of opinion at the moment is that themachine tends to read lower than theblood. If this is so then it works inthe Defendant's favour. A properlymaintained and calibrated machine inthe hands of a trained and experiencedoperator produces reliable and repro-ducible analysis figures, but both themachine and the operator must fulfilthe above conditions. Also the resultsmay be unreliable with an unco-operative subject as many drivers arewhen their faculties are impaired byalcohol.

There is also the problem of whe-ther the test is to be carried out asa spot check by the road side or in apolice station. In any event thereshould be some form of check availablefor the Defendant, either In the formof a blood sample or a second sampleof breath. I believe it has beenrecommended that the collection ofbreath might be done at the time intobags and analysis carried out in anapproved laboratory, but this raises anumber of technical scientific prob-lems.

If it is to be operated at the roadside then I agree it would be betterto have an independent operatorrather than a police officer. Themachine Could act as a screeningtest and blood samples could betaken from drivers at the police sta-tion by a doctor or trained technicianas I understand is the procedure incertain parts of the United States.

At the present moment we areawaiting the results of further in-vestigations into the accuracy of thesemachines, for as you know legislationconcerning alcohol and the RoadTraffic Act is being prepared in theUnited Kingdom and it Is Intended toIntroduce into the Bill an actual figureof the concentration of alcohol in thebody either in blood, urine or breathabove which it will be an offence todrive a motor vehicle. This is verytopical just at the moment and I maybe able to let you have some furtherInformation at the end of the month.

I must make it clear that theopinions expressed above, althoughcoming from entirely reputable andreliable authorities, are In no way anexpression of official policy.

I hope that they may be of help toyou. If there are any further devel-opments relevant to your queries I willwrite to you again.

Yours sincerely.H. R. M. Johnson,

M.A. M4B. B. Chir., M.C. Path.,D.M.J., lecturer in ForensicMedicine, St. Thomas's H-os-pital Medical School, London,S.E.1.

I thought that was interesting at thetime, and I wrote back to Dr. Johnson andasked him if he could give me the namesof the other instruments which he knewof in the United Kingdom. I got a let-ter back saying that the four machines incurrent use are the Breathalyser, the Alco-holometer, the Kittigawa-Wright, and theDrunkometer.

I hope the Minister and his advisers willlook into every one of these machines, andif there are any others, I hope they willalso have a look at them. It is not diffi-cult In this age to get big business housesto fly over a machine whether it is fromthe United States, from Timbucktoo, orfrom the United Kingdom. I would liketo make sure that we have the bestmachines available In Western Australia.As It Is, this legislation Is going to cost abit of mnoney, and I do not think we shouldspoil the ship for a haporth of tar. As Ihave said, we must make sure we get thebest machine possible.

I thought I would confine my remarks tosome of the objections that have beenmade by a few of the members, and bysome of the citizens outside this House.I must confess I have only had one phonecall from my electorate voicing disapprovalof this legislation. I realise, of course, thatthat is no guide as to whether the legisla-tion is unpopular, or whether it is popu-lar.

Mr. Hall: Did he have a slur in hisspeech?

Dr. HENN: No: he sounded a very nicegentlemnan, and enunciated his wordsvery well. One of the objections that havebeen raised by some people is that thebreathalyser test should only be done ifa third party is present. I thought of thismyself, but I felt that it would be a veryclumsy set-up If we were to have a thirdparty present. I can only speak from otherpeople's experiences, but I think we allknow how difficult it is, when one is un-fortunate enough to arrive at a Police sta-tion, to get anybody to accompany one. Ihave been asked to go to the police stationto act as bail occasionally for one of mypatients, or f or a, friend of mine, and Ido know that other people were also askedbefore I was approached, but nobody wasprepared to go there. It would appearthat nobody Is prepared to do his duty asa citizen by going to the police station toassist a fellow citizen. If there is to bea third party present it will have to be afriend of the person in trouble; it might behis lawyer, his doctor, or his uncle, or hisaunt. My experience Is that it takes toolong to get hold of anybody and it wouldbe far too clumsy to have a third partypresent.

It is equally difficult to get a Justice ofthe Peace on a Saturday night. So I feelit is quite satisfactory that the breatha-lyser test should be done by a police officer.

2364

(Thursday. 11 November, 1965.] 2365

It would be carried out, I should imagine,by at least a sergeant or an inspector. Ido not deny that there are one or twobullies in the Police Force who would notdo their job properly. I say one or two. andI do not want this to be misinterpreted orenlarged. There are people in every pro-fession-maybe one or two-who wouldpossibly abuse such authority if they had tocarry out this duty. But I think those incharge would make certain that the policeofficer responsible for the machine would beone of the best officers in the Pollee Force.

Mr. Craig: He will be specially trained.Dr. HENN: Not only should he be

specially trained, but his character shouldbe such that it cannot be impugned. Thereare good and bad people In every profes-sion or calling, and it would be nice tothink that one of the very best officers-perhaps one who is due for promotion-would be entrusted with this most scien-tific, important, and responsible job.

The SPEAKER (Mr. Hearan): Beforeleaving the Chair, I would like to remindmembers that there will be a meeting ofmanagers of both Houses immediately aftertea. The other point to which I would drawthe attention of members is that therewil be a meeting of members of bothHouses to discuss the proposal in connec-tion with the Parliament House Reserve.

Members may recall that at our annualgeneral meeting a motion was carriedwhich compelled us to call a second meetingof members to discuss the matter further,after we had listened to the officers of thePublic Works Department, and others, atthe meeting which was arranged last Wed-nesday. I would like as many members aspossible to attend as quickly as possibleaf ter tea.

Mr. Graham: Where will it be held?The SPEAKER, (Mr. Hearman): In the

Legislative Assembly Chamber. I will leavethe Chair until the ringing of the bells.Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8.20 p.m.

Dr. HENN: Before the tea suspension Iwas about to conclude my remarks on thesubject of breathalysers and I said I hopedthe Minister would appoint or have ap-pointed a very experienced and reliablePolice officer to be in control of themachines. I also pointed out that thebreathalyser machines should be regularlychecked. I think most machines have tobe checked at times and I do not knowwho will be responsible for checking thembut, without mentioning names, there isan instrument firm in Perth which wouldbe quite qualified to do this regular check.

Finally, on the breathalysers, it hasbeen said by some members opposite thatthe machines might not work properly, orpossibly the operator might not work themproperly. One must not forget that theaccused person can always demand a blood

test. As far as I am concerned, I feel thatthe difficulty which is envisaged by somemembers opposite, should they be real-and I do not think they are-can be re-solved in favour of the accused or theperson in difficulties by his demanding ablood test.

Another matter on which I wish to makea few comments is the question of com-pulsory blood tests. Provision is made inthe Bill that where a person is suspectedof drunken driving and is not within 25miles of the equipment, and a breathalysertest cannot be taken within four hours ofthe event, or the person has sustainedbodily injury so that he is unable to co-operate, he must submit himself to amedical practitioner and allow a sampleof blood to be taken.

Mr. Evans: Would you place more con-fidence in one method as against theother?

Dr. HENN: From what I have beenable to find out since receiving the letterwhich I quoted, the breathalyser is asatisfactory method of achieving a resultwhich can be taken to a court of law andlistened to and understood. Perhaps Ihave not used the words the member forKalgoorlie might have liked me to use, butI understand from the letter that thespecialist said that evidence obtained fromthis instrument was very good. By that Ithink he meant that it could be used in acourt and People could listen to the evi-dence with safety.

Mr. Evans: But have you yourself moreconfidence in one method as against theother?

Dr. HENN: I would like to have the twomethods. I could not say one was betterthan the other because I have not doneany of this type of work. I think theproper person to answer your question isthe analyst or the person taking the test.

Mr. Bickerton: Don't you think that Isall the more reason for us to further con-sider this method?

Dr. HENN: I have had plenty of time;I have been making inquiries for over amonth.

Mr. Bickerton: You have a start oneveryone else: you have already hadexperience in one method.

Dr. HENN: I believe the member forPilbara could have made more inquiriesif he had wanted to.

Mr. Bickerton: But not in the limitedtime available. You would have knownabout this probably a fortnight ago. Youare on the right side.

Dr. HENN: To get back to the subjecton which I was speaking-the matter ofblood tests, and the question of a personsubmitting himself to a medical prac-titioner-I would like provision for theperson to be able to nominate the medicalpractitioner. Then the accused could ask

2368 [ASSEMBLY.]

for his own doctor if he was within the timeand distance limitations. During theCommittee stage I hope to move anamendment to insert that provision. Ifa person has his own doctor it might beof great advantage to him. I do not thinkit matters which doctor takes the blood,because most people can do that, althoughIt is much easier for a person with a lotof experience. The reason I mention thisPoint is that the doctor examining theaccused might not know of a certaindisease which he might have. The accusedmay have a kidney disease or diabeteswhich, in the hustle and excitement of thearrest, and the inquiries going on, hemight have forgotten about.

Mr. Craig: The person might not beaware of the fact that he has such adisease and the taking of the blood mightbe beneficial to him.

Dr. HENN: That is so. The doctor mightnot have kown about the disease but onlydiscovered it on taking a. test. Further-more, if the patient's doctor took theblood test, the doctor would know of thepatient's nervous condition. It is Wellknown that when a person is involved withthe police-the average person-he getspretty excited. It only requires a fewwords at the police station and mostpeople's pulse increases and the bloodpressure rises, and the fingers begin totremble. So I always think the accused isat a great disadvantage. I have not hadthe experience myself, but I have seenother people in that situation, and I thinkthey should be given every opportunity-if this blood test gives them that. Theblood test could show that a person wasshaking from nervous reaction, and wasnot trembling because of alcohol. I thinkit would work both ways.

Mr. Graham: What is your reaction, asa professional man, to the taking of bloodfrom a person who does not want you totake it?

Dr. HENN: I am glad You asked methat question: I will be coming to thatpoint very soon. I always leave thenicest piece until last.

Mr. Bickerton: I do not like that verymuch, coming from a doctor.

Dr. HENN: There is another diseasecalled Parkinson's disease where symptomsof such disease are shown quite early inlife. About 15 years ago a friend of minefound himself in the unfortunate situa-tion where he was supposed to be drunk.I happened to know that his father suf-fered from Parkinson's disease, and Inoticed that my friend was shaking. Ipassed him on to a specialist to confirmwhat I thought was the diagnosis and,fortunately, it proved to be correct. Soin that case the fellow was shakingsimply because he suffered from thatdisease. The effect of being arrested com-pletely upset him. He admitted that he

had had a few drinks, but in my opinionthe drinks were not the cause of hisbehaviour. That example will show thatthis blood test is going to work both ways.

The member for Balcatta asked mewhat my personal opinion was with regardto the taking of blood tests or being re-quired to take a blood test from an un-conscious patient.

Mr. Graham: No: a conscious one, buta protesting one.

Dr. HENN: The doctor does not haveto take a test.

Mr. Craig: There is no compulsion todo so; it says so in the Bill.

Mr. Graham: No: I realise that, I maybe a person who does not want to takethe test, but the police officer Insists thatI have to take it, so I reluctantly do sobecause I do not want to pay a fine of£100 or so.

Dr. HENN: Not necessarily.Mr. Graham: It would square with

your conscience if you did not take thetest?

Dr. HENN: Nor am I compelled to con-duct a test on any person. if the honour-able member were the one who had toundergo the test I might consider thathe was too ill to have the test taken.

Mr. Craig: You are right there!Dr. HENN: I said, "too Ill," Mr. Speaker.Mr. Graham: It is obvious to me that

I should not have you as my medicaladviser.

Dr. HENN: The honourable membermight be missing out on something.

Mr. Graham: I am sure I am: I amstill alive.

Dr. HENN: The patient who is uncon-scious presents an aspect that gives mefood for thought. Such a patient, ofcourse, would be promptly taken to ahospital for the obvious reason, and placedunder observation for two or three days.He would be subjected to X-rays andvarious tests and after two or three dayshad elapsed it could be shown that hewas suffering from some disease apartfrom having too much alcohol in hisblood.

I do not relish the thought of beingasked to take a blood test of a man whois unconscious, because I know that if thetest shows he has .15 per cent. of alcoholin his blood he will be found guilty ofbeing drunk whilst in charge of a motor-car. But, like everyone else, doctors haveresponsibilities to the community: It isnot all honour and glory for them. Medi-cal practitioners have to perform manytasks that aire not pleasant, and this couldwell be one of them. However, we havea responsibility to the community and, incertain circumstances, I would be quiteprepared to conduct a blood test. On the

2366

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.1 2367

other hand, each ease being taken on Itsmerits, I might refuse to conduct the test.I have not been posed with that questionas yet, but there are certain conditionsunder which one might have to do it asa responsible physician.

The question of assault on the personhas been the subject of some concern tosome members opposite and, I have nodoubt, to a few members of the public: buthere we should bear in mind that whenone intends to travel abroad one has toundergo vaccination and have injectionsfor cholera, and so on. They are not com-pulsory in any shape or form, but if theintending traveller does not have them hemay find after embarking on his trip thathe cannot land in some foreign country.There are, of course, many persons whotravel abroad, but I have not heard ofanyone who has refused to take the vac-cination. The position is that they arenot thinking of the results of the needles,but the enjoyment of the trip ahead ofthem and they submit themselves to vac-cination because they know that otherwisethey would not be allowed to land on somecountry overseas.

Also, any person entering Australia whohas not been vaccinated against smallpoxwill be refused entry unless he submitshimself for vaccination on the spot. Again,that is not compulsory, and if such a per-son refused to be vaccinated he would haveto remain on board ship or aircraft andgo on to Timbuktu. All those opera-tions are fairly compulsory on people whobecome involved with them. Fi1nally, inthis State people undergo compulsorychest X-rays. There has been some oppo-sition to it, but most people submit them-selves to the test; and the fact It hasbeen in operation for the last 20 yearsindicates that It has been well received bymembers of the public, and it can be saidwith truth that pulmonary tuberculosishas been eradicated almost to minor pro-portions because of the tests made.

Although I do not like anything thatis compulsory, I believe there are certainsituations in which compulsion has to beexercised. This Bill is endeavouring tocut down road accidents and particularlythose which have been caused by driverswho have consumed too much alcohol.The Minister has given figures to theHouse to show that in past years a largenumber of accidents have been due to theconsumption of too much alcohol.

Mr. Graham: I do not think they provethat.

Dr. HENN: I know the honourable mem-ber did not like it because he said so whenthe Minister was speaking.

Mr. Graham: The figures did not provethat the consumption of alcohol was thecause of th~e large number of accidents.They merely showed that some persons;had consumed liquor.

Dr. HENN: I know the honourable mem-ber does not like what has been said.

Mr. Graham: Those drivers did nothave accidents merely because they weresober. It was a fact that they had themwhilst they were sober; that is all.

Dr. KENN: I commend the Minister forintroducing the Bill. The Minister is anonchalant sort of Person, and does notget excited about anything as a rule.

Mr. Graham: lie does with the DeputyLeader of the Opposition.

Dr. HENN: When he was making hissecond reading speech I think I detectedfrom his attitude a feeling of satisfactionand hope that this Bill would do some-thing to cut down the appalling road toll.in this State.

I want to mention another group ofpeople: that is, the pilots of aircraft.F'romn the time aircraft were first flown.the Pilots and those directly concerned inthe operation of an aeroplane have observed--so I have been informed-the unwrittenlaw that they do not drink for some hoursPrior to the aircraft taking to the air.There must be some reason for their ob-serving such a law.

Mr. Jamieson: It is not only an unwrit-ten law; it is a condition imposed by theCivil Aviation Department.

Dr. HENN: I have now been informedthat such a condition is compulsory.Apparently, if a pilot smells of drink whenabout to enter an aeroplane he is not per-mitted to board that plane to operate It.I feel we could have taken a lesson fromaircraft pilots. We could say that amotorcar is more dangerous than an aero-plane, so why not cut down our consumnp-tion of intoxicating liquor prior to driv-ing a motorcar?

Mr. Bickerton: I would agree with youIn regard to taking a test for a driver'slicense. The driver's license that is issuedis just a piece of paper to drive almostanything.

Dr. HENN: I was merely saying thatthe drivers of motor vehicles should fol-low the example of aircraft Pilots and cutdown their consumption of liquor beforetaking charge of a motor vehicle, but inthe nature of things as they are oneconsumes many drinks and still continuesto drive a motorcar.

Mr. Bickerton: I have no doubt thata pilot could still pilot an aeroplane afterhaving consumned a few drinks.

Dr. 1HENN: So T think it is not unrea-sonable to introduce legislation of thiskind. It is a pity we do not think a littlemore of the old pensioner who, on awinter's night, leaves his lodgings with hiscoat buttoned up against the elements,crosses the road with his head down tobuy a bottle of milk at the shop opposite,and, because his hearing is impaired and

[ASSEMBLY.]

his eyesight Is dim, he does not hear thevehicle bearing down on him, and itknocks him to the ground. It is thenfound that the driver of that vehicle hashad too much to drink. In my opinionwe give too much consideration to themotorist and not sufficient. to the personwho gets hit. We might think about ourchildren who, in the course of rushingacross the road, are knocked down byvehicles driven by drunken drivers andwithin a. few minutes are patients in theChildren's Hospital.

Mr. Bickerton: I sincerely hope thatthose who speak on this Bill will practisewhat they preach.

Dr. HENN: We might also think aboutthe young person who has just got a job,who is paying off a home and livingdecently, and who drives out in his motorcar. Through no fault of his he becomesinvolved in an accident with a drunkendriver; and, as a result of his injuries, be-comes a paraplegic for the rest of his life.Therefore I think we should give a greatdeal more thought to those people.

Mr. Bickerton: I agree with you.Dr. HENN: The member for Pilbara

talked for about 20 minutes on the in-adequacies of the breathalyser. What heomitted to say was that the accused per-son could have called for a blood test, sohis arguments seem to be without anyfoundation.

I think I have said enough to indicateI support the Bill. I congratulate theMinister for introducing it, because I knowhe has done so only in an attempt toreduce road accidents In general, and thoseIn particular which have been caused bydrivers who have consumed too muchalcohol.

MR. FLETCHER (Fremiantle) (8.41pm.): I will support any measure intro-duced into this House which I believe wUireduce road accidents, whether theybe fatal! or those that cause bodilyinjury; but I cannot support this Bill withenthusiasm, because I do not think it willreduce the road toll. I regret to have tosay that. The measure will have onlylimited application and, in view of thefact that new drivers are coming on to theroad continuously, this apparatus to beused to analyse a person's breath will beused on only a limited number of drivers.A few days ago I cited an incident whenspeaking to another Bill. A constable onroad patrol had parked his motor cycle infront of a vehicle and was discussing withthe driver of that vehicle his poor drivingability. Unfortunately the handbrake wasreleased, the vehicle rolled forward andpushed the constable's motorbike over.

Naturally, this put the constable in a badframe of mind and, to use common par-lance, he "hit the driver of the car withthe book."

In subsection (3) of proposed new sec-tion 32B. it is provided-

A person shall not be required, undersubsection (1) or (2) of this section. tosubmit himself for analysis of hisbreath if-

(a) breath analysing equipment.in proper working order, andan authorised person are notavailable within a distance oftwenty-flve miles..

Under this Bill, if the constable wished tobe vindictive he could transport this fel-low away from the spot where be hadinterviewed him for a distance of over 24miles, during which Lime there could be amultiplicity of other traffic accidents oc-curring whilst this constable was busy con-ducting his reluctant passenger on a jour-ney of 24 miles or more. For thatreason I believe the Bill lacks somethingin regard to what the Mlinister genuinelyintends to achieve.

I point out to the House thatthe breathalyser which was exhibitedin this building the other eveningcan only be used by a limited num-ber of people when they are required tobreathe down the pipe on the machine.Certainly not more than one could breatheinto it simultaneously. I believe if twopersons were needed to breathe into itshortly one after the other, there could beconfusion.

Mr. Craig: They cannot do that; eachhas to be separate.

Mr. FLLTCHER: Let me elaborate onthat point. Later on I will go Into itfurther, but this was the attitude I adoptedwhen I first rose. I Maid I did not believethis apparatus would achieve the desiredpurpose of reducing the road toll. Assum-ing that the instrument had declared aperson to be drunk, after he was provendrunk, It would pose this situation:, thatthe accident had already occurred andevidence was taken of the fact that thedriver was drunk. It is a bit late toarrive at that conclusion after an acci-dent. I think others have made the point.

We are already able to fine people; andwe already have radar and other equipmentto catch a transgressor; but what salutaryeffect has that had? The member forPerth said that this would be a deterrent.I ask the House whether It will be anymore a deterrent than the existing fines.

Mr. Durack: I said I hoped It would.Mr. FLET7CHER: I ask the honourable

member whether this instrument wouldhave any deterrent effect if it were in theback room of, say, a local police stationwhere it would recline and not be obviousto the public, and certainly not the drivingpublic. F'urthermore, It Is compulsory thata person should breathe into this apparatus.it is said the general public is Quite

(Thursday. 11 November, 1965.] 2369

apathetic as to whether or not compulsionis applied. The editorial in this evening'spaper Wook a very different line, while itquoted the opinions of other Individualswho, in the main, supported it. However,by and large, I suggest to this House thatthe average person is concerned regardingan intrusion Into ils basic and funda-mental rights.

In support of my contention, I will readone Paragraph from an article whichAppeared in The West Australian on the24th March, 1984. The heading is"Report Says Voters Lack Knowledge".The heading is not related to the pars-graph I wish to read, which is as follows:-

Many Australian electors believe aGovernment is an oppressive symbolof organised incompetence and Par-liament Is an amusing but expensivemeans of ventilating nonsense.

A paragraph further down in support ofmy contention says--

The Individual voter believed he wasan over-governed, inaudible humanbeing whose only political privilegewas the endorsed right to vote for aPolitician whom he despised, In orderthat a policy which he distrustedcould be ignored by a Governmentwhich he disliked,

This is a finding in a report by a SydneyLiberal Party special committee. It wasnot by a special Labor Party committee,but a special Liberal Party committee.The Government which is introducing thislegislation causes this sort of printedthought. Had we, on this side of theHouse, done it, it would have been de-clared to be all sorts of isms-ocialsm.and so on.

I said earlier I did not believe the fearof this instrument would be any more ofa deterrent than the existing blood test.The attitude of the average person Is that"an accident cannot happen to me" andhe believes that right up to the point ofimpact. Whether he has been drink-ing, or whether he is sober, he stillbelieves "it can't happen to me". The bloodtest or breathalyser test Is consequentupon an accident if drinking is suspected.So here we have a situation where weare doing nothing more than trying toProve that the fellow Involved in the ac-cident was drunk,

I ask the House: How will this preventillegal or legal drinkers from driving? Byillegal, r mean under-age drinkers, Iregret to say that these people will con-tinue to drive, The fact that there Isthe likelihood of a blood test or a breathtest does not enter the heads of driverswhen they get into a motorcar. As I havesaid,, the tests are not taken until afterthe accident. Therefore they will not pre-vent accidents. I cannot see what benefitwill accrue from this.

The member for Perth gave a very goodlegal address to this House. as did themember for Kalgoorie on the same sub-ject. But In his remarks the member forPerth mentioned, by Implication as it were.the infallibility of the machine. We knowthat no machine is Infallible. We alsoknow that no individual is infallible. Butto revert to the machine, I think we allknow that anything mechanical can breakdown. I think the Minister would admitthat, even in regard to his own car. Weknow that radar can be defective, and thiscan be the cause of argument In court.I think legal members in this House willadmit that radar decisions have been thesubject of challenge in court. I would sug-gest to the House that the instrument isjust as fallible as the individual.

There is another aspect that occurs tome; and the Minister might clarify MYmind on this. I refer to the volume ofbreath that Is breathed into the machine.Would that make a difference? How arewe going to make a Person expel air froma lung filled with air Into this Instrument?Perhaps the member for Perth could tellme. A person could expel a big breathor a small breath. Would the Proportionbe the same If he merely breathed thequota of air in his mouth as distinct fromthe air in his lungs into the machine?There are a lot of questions that could beasked regarding the efficiency of this par-ticular apparatus.

I have mentioned the public attitude;and I have questioned whether theperson who operates the breathalyser ismore or less competent at anl times to givea definite answer as to the result. To sup-port that contention I will show that mis-takes in samples of blood can occur. I1will refer the House briefly to a questionof mine which appears In Votes and Pro-ceedings of the 27th October. 1965, underthe heading "Blood Transfusions, StricterSupervision". The question is as follows:-

Mr. FLRrCHn asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Health:(1) Is he aware-

(a) of Daily News, 6/4/85. refer-ence to a coroner's inquirywhich revealed that a Patientdied as a consequence of atransfusion with incompatibleblood:

(b) that this incompatible bloodhad as its origin a private asdistinct from a Governmentor Red Cross supervisedsource:

(e) that the coroner recommend-ed that all laboratories shouldstudy the strict methods usedat the Sir Charles OairdnerHospital to prevent a mix-upof blood samples?

(2) As the coroner stated that at theSir Charles Galrdner Hospital onlyone test was done at a time, Will

270[ASSEMBLTI3

he, in co-operation with theDirector of the Blood TransfusionService, seek means of ensuringby way of legislation, if necessary,that the safe practices applying atthe Sir Charles Gairdner Hospitalare practised by all laboratorieswhere such tests are carried out?

The reply, which was given on behalf ofthe Minister for Health, was as follows:-

(1) 1 am aware of the circumstancesof the death in question andunderstand that it was due to anaccidental interchange of bloodslides in a private laboratory.

(2) Accidents such as this are notreadily Preventable by legislation,but I shall have further inquiriesmade to ascertain whether this ispracticable,

The Minister admitted that there wasa mistake In the blood transfusion, Ifthis can happen in relation to a death ofa person, then I suggoest, it could alsohappen In consequence of a blood test.Where more than one blood test is takenin any one laboratory, there is the pros-pect of confusion of the blood samples Inrelation to the persons from whom thesamples are taken. I suggest that thiswould apply particularly In a policestation or other such place. If that sortof mistake can occur in an ostensiblyproperly supervised place where bloodsamples are taken, then it can conceivablyhappen at a police station where there isnot the same supervision.

I also suggest that if more than onebreath sample has been taken and theresult is given on a slip of paper, therecould be confusion as to whom the slipof paper belongs to. The officer in chargecould be speaking on the phone and hecould reach out and Pick up the wrongslip of paper and hand it to the wrongperson. This mistake could also occur Inregard to blood samples. An onen doorcould result in the slips of paper beingblown on to the floor, and subsequentlythe slips could be given to the wrongpeople.

A coroner's inquiry was held in relationto the case I mentioned, in the questionand answer which I have quoted, and asimilar mistake could cause a wrong deci-sion to be reached at a subsequent court in-quiry into the death of the person resultingfrom a traffic accident. This could occur asa consequence of a mistake not only inblood samples but also in breath samples,in the manner I have outlined.

I conscientiously believe, I regret to say,that this Bill will not stop the road hog ordrink hog. The member for Swan the otherevening made what I believe to be a sugges-tion of far reater worth than this Bill. Onthat occasion, this House was not listeningany more to what was being said than onthis occasion. The member for Swan said

how at certain intersections had beenplaced what he termed silent cops--paintedfigures of traffic policemen.

The SPEAKER (Mr. Hearman): I thinkyou have been getting away from the Billfor some time. You had better get backon to it.

Mr. FLETCHER: I believe in othermethods as outlined by the member forSwan, rather than in seeking toachieve a reduction in the road tollthrough the medium of this Bill. I donot believe that this Bill will reduce theroad toll, and I have submitted argumentsto support my thought that there couldbe a mistake in relation to samples takenof both blood and breath. I1 do not thinkthat, simply because there is a breath-alyser in the back room of a police station,it will be any deterrent to the averagedriver; and, as a consequence. I cannotsee anything in the Bill which reqauiressupporting.

MRt. TON'KIN (Melville-Deputy Leaderof the Opposition) (9 p.m.]: I say at theoutset that I am no wowser but I holdno brief whatever for the man who drInksto excess, and to such excess that he isincapable of controlling his motorcar. ButI am not convinced that this legislation isdesirable. Rightly or wrongly, I have al-ways held the view that no steps shouldbe taken unless there Is a reason. I do notthink this step should be taken withouta very good and substantial reason.

The Minister said that this breathalyzerscheme is now being used In Victoria withsome success. From what angle? onlyfrom the point of view that it is enablingthe polite to make more charges and getmore verdicts. That is the only aspectfrom which It can be said it is a success.

Mr. Craig: Wouldn't that be a deterrentagainst drunken driving?

Mr. TONKIN: No.Mr. Craig: Not much!Mr. TONKIN: Not necessarily; any

more than the number of hangings hasproved to be a deterrent to murder. TheMinister quoted some figures for Victoriafor 1964 in support of the contention thatit is a success in Victoria. To substantiatethat view. he said that 970 persons hadbeen tested and 827 charged. All thatproves is that It has enabled the PoliceDepartment to successfully take morecases to the courts.

Mr. Craig: Don't you think the drunkendrivers should be taken to the court?

Mr. TONKIN: I am not dealing withthat aspect; I am dealing with the Minis-ter's statement that It has proved a suc-cess in Victoria. It depends on what youmean by success. I thought the aim of thislegislation was to cut down the road toll.

Mr. Craig:- So it is.

2370

[Thursday, 11 November, 1985.] 2371

Mr. TONKIN: I have not heard a singleword from anybody which indicates thatmore prosecutions mean less road toll.It might do. But I have not heard a single'word from anybody to give some evidencethat this is so. and I dispute it. The Min-ister said-and I think he is quite wrongin this, and again he gave no evidence-that they have proved their effectivenessas a deterrent against drunken driving.

I challenge the Minister to advance onesingle tittle of evidence to prove the truthof that assertion: To prove the effective-ness as a deterrent against drunken driv-ing. I say that is a straightout unadul-terated assertion: it is nothing else. It wasnot backed up in evidence at all to provethat it was true. So his statement is purelya statement of opinion and not worth anymore than that.

The member for Perth made a goodspeech according to his view: so did themember for Kalgoorlie according to hisview. But I thought the member for Perthcompletely destroyed the value of hisspeech in his final remarks to me. I quotefrom the Hansard report what was saidat the time. I said-

Has the honourable member anyviews on whether the evidence shouldbe excluded from civil cases?

His reply was--Yes. I entirely agree to the exclusion

in civil cases.I said-

Why?He said-

Because this Bill is concerned withproviding a deterrent to an offence.

But he did not advance any evidence toshow it would be a6 deterrent.

Mr. Jamieson: He said "criminal of-fence" too.

Dr. Henn: Don't you think it was decentof him to answer the question at all? Hebad almost sat down.

Mr. TONKIN: That has nothing to dowith it. I appreciate the fact that he neednot have answered it, and I would not haveobjected if lie had not: but I am entitledto use what he told this House In replyto the question and that was that this Billis concerned with providing a deterrent. Isay It is up to someone to prove that Itwill provide a deterrent.

Mr. Elliott: It is not an encouragement.Is it?

Mr. TONKfI: That is not an argument.Surely we are not out to encourage!

Mr. Craig: Don't you think it will actas a deterrent?

Mr. TONKIN: I say it is up to someonewho argues that this will be a deterrent tobring some evidence that it is a deterrent:and up to date I have not heard any. Themember for Wembley also appeared to basehis suport of this Bill on the fact that it

is a deterrent; and he has not the slightestidea of any evidence to prove that it Is adeterrent. It is wishful thinking on thepart of those who say it is.

Mr. Graham: That is all.Mr. TONKIN: That is not good enough.Mr. flurack: A reasonable hypothesis!.Mr. Graham: Playing with words[IMr. TONKIN: That is not good enough.

The member for Perth ought to knowbetter than most of us that opinions arenot worth much unless they are backedup by evidence.

Dr. Henn: Why do you think they aregoing to bring it in in the United King-dom?

Mr. TONKIN: Possibly for the samereason it has been introduced here. If ithas been such a great success in GreatBritain or the United States, surely theremust be some evidence somewhere that ithas been a deterrent! One would thinkso after all the years It has been in opera-tion in some places. Surely something hasemerged to indicate that it Is a deterrent!

There is something lacking somewhere ifthose who believe in this principle cannotProduce one piece of evidence to prove thatit is a deterrent, and without it it must berated as a pure assumption only that thatis so. In the absence of evidence I refuseto accept the view. I say without hesitationthat If I could have some evidence thatthis is a deterrent I would support the Billwithout the slightest doubt: but In theabsence of It, I do not accept the viewthat it is a deterrent.

The Daily News in its leading articlethis evening says straightout that so far asVictoria is concerned it has not proved thatit is a deterrent. It makes the positiveassertion that it has done nothing to stopthe road toll rising. The introduction ofthe breathalyser, according to the DailyNews, has done nothing to stop the roadtoll rising In Victoria. So how much of adeterrent is it? According to the columnsof the Dlaily News this evening aL numberof people have been interrogated, and theconsensus of opinion was that this oughtto be tried; but they all based their opinionon the belief that It is a deterrent, and Iquote the consensus of opinion-

If compulsory breathalyser testscould halt the road toll and makeroads and highways safer Places todrive on. they want them introduced.

That is my view, too. But it is a straight-out assumption at the moment In the com-plete absence of any evidence that thatis SO. Surely there is an obligation onthose who strongly support this type oflegislation, which ordinarily would be ab-horrent to most of us because of the com-pulsion involved in it. to give some evi-dernce or proof that it is a step in the rightdirection, otherwise it is just a straight-out case of a hope that some good will

2372 ASSEMBLY.]

result. I know what I would have donehad I been in the Minister's place. Iwould have asked for some evidence thatthis is effective. 1f no-one else had triedit, we might be excused for pioneering inthis field in the hope that It would dosomething to reduce the road toll, but weare not in that position. others havetried It and are still trying it. It hasbeen in operation for a considerable timein some places. Surely there must be someevidence somewhere if it is effective thatit reduces the road toll! But the Ministeris not able to produce any evidence. Allhe did was to say it would, and in a waythat he was not entitled to say it in theabsence of evidence. Let me repeat againhis very forthright statement-

They have proved their effectivenessas a deterrent against drunken driving.

How have they proved It? Where is hisproof? If they have proved it, the proofmust be In existence. Where is it? Let'shave it. If the Minister can produce it,he can secure MY vote.

In my view it Is a straightout assertioncompletely unsupported by evidence, andI am surprised that the member for Perthshould accept it-a man whose trainingwould require him to want evidence. Ifa client went to him to take his case hewould ask for evidence-and pretty strongevidence too-and then he would put itforward to the best of his ability in thecourt. He would not get up before ajudge and make a statement that "Its ef-fectiveness has been proved" without quot-ing a number of cases and saying "It isProved here by these figures, and provedthere by those figures." He might getsomewhere then; but to stand up in thecourt and make straightout assertions thatthe effectiveness had been proved and notbe in a position to produce some evidencewould only be to show the weakness in hiscase; and that Is the weakness in the Min-ister's case.

So boll It all down and it comes to this:Because It is In operation elsewhere it hasenabled the police to take more chargessuccessfully, and because It is in operationin Victoria and It has enabled the pollesuccessfully to launch more prosecutions,it ought to be tried here because it, mayresult in reducing the road toll. I do notthink that is a good enough argument inlegislation of this kind. We want some-thing more than that before we take thisstep.

The Minister has to be In a position tosay that this has been tried for so manyyears in the United States and It has beentried for so many years in Great Britainand the result Is that out of so manydrivers the road deaths have fallen by soand so and it is attributed to the use ofthe breathalyser and the fact that thepolice are able to take more prosecutions.

If he could prove something like thathe would have a case: but it seems that hecannot, and all he can do is make asser-tions that it is effective as a deterrent. Iventure to say there is not one person inthis Assembly who is in a position to pro-duce any evidence whatever, and it is justan example of wishful thinking.

I do not complain about that. We areall appalled by the mounting road toll, andwe feel that some measures are requiredto check it. But I think we have a rightto feel that we are not Just stabbing inthe dark; that we are not just imposingthese restraints and giving the policemore power to prosecute if we are notgoing to get any substantial results fromwhat is to take place. And I am afraid,in the absence of evidence to the contrary,that this legislation will not result In anyreduction of the road toll. It will resultin increased revenue to the exchequer. Itwill enable the police to obtain moresuccesses with the cases they take to thecourt, but I cannot see any result beyondthat.

There is one aspect of the machineryof this which worries me a bit. I had alook at the breathalyser for a short timethe other evening and I saw a couple ofmembers go through the test. I noticedit took a trained constable some time toadjust the machine. If this were a purelyautomatic device I would have no objec-tion1 but it is not; It has to be manuallyadjusted in the first place before it startsto operate. I do not care who the trainedman is, or how brilliant he Is; he is humanand he is prone to error.

I have seen champions in variousbranches of sport who have their lapsesand who are prone to err. Who Is to saythat now and again this trained man willnot fail to adjust the vernier on hismachine correctly before he starts to takethe test? I think there ought to be someprovision in the Bill for a check on theadjustment of the machine before It isused, and therefore I believe there shouldbe two trained men. I do not think oqneman ought to have the responsibility ofsetting the machine and operating it. andusing its results as conclusive evidence ofits efficiency without his work beingchecked.

I have seen this happen so often. I haveseen it happen with accountants, withauditors, with lawyers, with members ofParliament, and with doctors, who oc-casionally have lapses and make mistakes.They forget something and, being human,are Prone to error. It would be Just toobad if one had a test on this breathalyserand this was the time when the officerwho was taking the test failed Properlyto adjust the machine before he took thetest and as a result he got a readingwhich was incorrect.

2372

(Thursday, 11 November, 1965.1 2

As this is a very serious matter I thinksome attempt ought to be made to reducethe possibility of error-it could never becompletely eliminated, but I think thepossibility of error could be reduced. Inthat connection I think two officers shouldbe present before the machine is used-oneto check the adjustment-and they shouldboth be trained men. If the machinecould adjust itself, with no possibility oferror, and it could do all the operations.as it does the majority of them, I wouldnot have the objection I have now. Butbefore it starts it has to be adjustedmanually by the man operating it, andas the percentage is such a low one evena small error could make all the differencebetween a man being successfully chargedor not.

So I feel that in those circumstancesthe work ought to be checked. Why, evenin a retail departmental store, the pro-prietor will not rely upon the salesmanwho is making the sale. The stores havea provision that when a docket is madeout it has to be checked by some othersalesman in the department.

Mr. Jamieson: They do the same thingwith the changing of a note.

Mr. TONKIN: How often have we seentellers in a bank count notes twice beforethey hand them out in exchange for acheque. They count them once and thenthey turn them over and count themagain because of the Possibility of humanerror. That cannot be brushed aside. Ithas to be acknowledged: and this is fartoo important a matter to take a riskwith it.

Mr. Dunn: Do you say that they shouldnot use X-rays or dentists' drills?

Mr. TONKIN: That is an entirelydifferent matter.

Mr. Dunn: Why is it?Mr. TONKIN: The use of an X-ray is

a different matter entirely.Mr. Dunn: What about a dentist's drill?Mr. Bickerton: There have been plenty

of mistakes made with them.My. TONKIN: The type of question I

am getting indicates the honourablemember does not appreciate the point I1am trying to make.

Mr. Dunn: You are quite right.Mr. TONKIN: I do not think there Isany body in this Assembly who would

attempt successfully to argue that ahuman being is not prone to err, and I donot care how bright he may think he is,or how bright he may really be. I haveseen the most brilliant people fall intoerrors and make mistakes. They may notbe frequent, but they make them, and thatis all right when it does not affect anybody.You Mr. Speaker, will recall cases involv-ing doctors, and the use of blood serum,where a life has been lost and the verdict

in the court has been death by mis-adventure. And what is misadventure?Human error.

Mr. Dunn: Stop everything, then!

Mr. TONKIN: Admitting the possibilityof human error surely there is nothingwron~g with doing something to try tominimise the number of errors and soprovide for a check reading. Let there besome other trained man who can comealong and make sure the set is properlyadjusted before a test is taken. That isnot asking for something unreasonablebut it is a protection for the fellow whohas to stand the racket when the resultis ebtained. I suggest that some thoughtbe given to that aspect.

I hope that when the Minister replieshe will make some attempt to producesubstantiation of the assertion that thisis effective as a deterrent, and if he can-not produce any evidence I expect him tosay so.

Mr. Craig: And if he can, you will votef or the Bill?

Mr. TONKIN: I will.

Mr. Craig: Thank you.Mr. TONKIN: But it has to be evidence.

I1 do not want any of that tripe that isgiven to me from time to time by theTotalisator Agency Board. It has to beevidence in support of the contention; notsome more assertions and opinions whichwill not stand up to scrutiny. That is thestand I take on this Bill. As everybodyseems to believe, its purpose is that it willact as a deterrent, If it will, let us haveit, but let us have some proof it will actas a deterrent so that our votes will notbe obtained on false pretenees.

MR. JAMIESON Cfleeloo) [9.28 p.m.]: rwas rather amazed at the attitude adoptedby the member for Perth when speakingto this Bill, In past years I have heardmany legal gentlemen in this House dis-cuss various measures that have beenbrcught before Parliament and they havealways indicated they were interested inwhat may happen to a client they mayhave to defend. On this occasion I didnot detect one semblance of that line ofthinking by the member for Perth. Oneof the Problems associated with the pres-ent proposals is Probably not the degreeof compulsion, but the likelihood thatBritish Justice is not being done. Thedefending motorist will have to prove hisinnocence against an assumption of guiltbuilt up by the workings of the machine.

Indeed, the Minister and others, includ-ing the member for Perth, have said thatthis is only prima facie evidence. But it isnot; It is conclusive evidence. In the firstplace we were told that when the bloodtests were to be taken they were to beprima facie evidence; but informationmade available by the Minister proves

2373

2374 [ASSEMBLY.]

otherwise. If this were not a fact of allthose Who have been tested at varioustimes since this legislation was enactedat least some of them would have gainedan acquittal, but such is not the case.

Since the introduction of the Act some864 People have been convicted of having.15 per cent. Or more of alcohol contentin their blood. That period covers fromthe 1st July, 1959, to the 31st October.1965. In that time there were three whowere acquitted, but to ascertain the rea-son for their acquittal I went a littlefurther and asked for the circumstances.The circumstances were that two personswere acquitted in 1959-that is early inthe history of the legislation-with a bloodalcoholic content of .16 per cent. and, in1901, one person was acquitted with a bloodalcoholic content of .15. In the earlystages of the legislation there appearedto be some doubt on the results of theanalyses produced as evidence.

Following the decision of the court onappeal, an analysis certificate showing thepercentage of alcohol in the blood to be.15 or more, has been accepted as primafacie evidence-again the words "primafacie" are used. Many of these cases weredefended by counsel. This naturally fol-lowed because the person who admits heis drunk and who is handicapped by tak-ing the test would, of course, have pleadedguilty in any case.

It is obvious that many of the 800-oddpeople convicted would have the thoughtin their minds that they were not suffi-ciently inebriated to be required to betaken to the police station and, as a con-sequence, to have demanded a test andno doubt, following that, would have soughtthe best lawyers possible to put their casesbefore the court. However, it Is morethan passing strange that only one ofthose 800-odd persons was acquitted. Inall the other cases, after it had been proventhat the person was drunk it became con-clusive evidence before the court that hewas incapable of controlling a vehicle atthe time he was apprehended, despite anyother evidence that may have beenbrought to the notice of the court. It isobvious that the only evidence that themagistrate would take into considerationwould be the evidence presented by thepolice following the taking of a blood test,otherwise the police would have appealedand he would have been in the positionof having been made look quite silly inview of the attitude of the High Courton this particular subject.

Mr. Durack: What evidence do you thinkmight be available in the defence of a per-son who had 14 middies?

Mr. JAMIESON: That would depend onhow and where he had the 14 middies. Ipulled the member for Perth up on thispoint earlier in view of the broad state-ment he made along similar lines. Some

consideration would have to be taken ofthe fact of how quickly the person con-cerned had consumed the 14 middies. Thereare many factors that could be taken intoaccount. A man may enter a hotel andmay consume 14 middies over a period offive hours and he would still be all right,but if he consumed 14 middles within onehour he may not be all right; it is all aquestion of circumstances. It would bethe responsibility of his legal representa-tive to take those circumstances into con-sideration.

Unfortunately, it would appear that thelegal gentleman in this Chamber wouldnot be one of those who would be particu-larly interested in what would happen tohis client in a case such as this, and Iwould hope that many of those he hasunfortunately defended will, at somestage, catch up with him.

Although I have a limited knowledge ofelectronics I would be inclined to theopinion that the breathalyser is not amachine that is infallible in its presentstate and I would prefer the blood testsystem. That would be a more positivesystem and less liable to any problems orerrors.

Undoubtedly the breathalyser is acti-vated by some form of galvanometer andinitially it is activated and balanced bythe reaction of the circuits which passthrough the photo electric cells which, inturn, are activated by a concentrated lightthrough the substance that is being usedfor the purpose of straining the alcoholfrom the breath on one side of thecircuit and, on the other side of the cir-cuit there is a balancing tube containinga similar substance without the contentof alcohol.

We had an example of what occurredwhen, initially, the operator put an un-opened ampule in each of the receptaclesso that the light could pass through them,and the degree of light filtration obviouslycauses a variation in the circuits. Theoperator inserted similar tubes tobalance the machine. Incidentally, thecircuit would have some form of ampli-fication in the make-up of the machine;otherwise it would take so long to warmup. The circuit travels through the elec-tronic valves used to amplify the smallmicro-currents which are created, in thephoto electric cells, thus providing thecurrent for the operation of the machine.

once the operator proceeds he takestwo of these phials and places one ineach receptacle. After he has balancedhis machine he removes one phial-andwe must bear in mind that it is a glassphial-and cuts the top off. He then putsit back without having regard for anysmudge, smear, or anything else. Hecould even have cut his finger on therough edge of the phial when he tookthe top off.

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.) 37

The operator may then inadvertentlyput a smear on the glass container of thatphial, and even though the machine hasbeen balanced previously it may now beunbalanced; and unless he goes throughthe Procedure again-which is most un-likely-there would be a different lightpotential between the two circuits. As aconsequence one would have to be abso-lutely certain that it had been cleanedlike a pair of spectacles every time one ofthe phials was touched or altered. If it isto be left to a man to adjust the machineto the degree necessary, does any mem-ber think we will get the same degree ofaccuracy on each occasion?

It leaves too much to chance. Themember for Pilbara indicated the numberof balancing devices involved. Not onlymust the machine be balanced from anelectronic point of view, but it must alsobe balanced from the point of view ofits position on a particular table, orwherever it is situated. So there are aconsiderable number of aspects to be con-sidered.' If a policeman is handling adrunken person and trying to get him tobreathe into a breathalyser and endeav-ouring to get that person to concentrate,bow far do you think he will get, Mr.Speaker? It would be hard enough tokeep that drunken person still to enablea blood sample to be taken. Once a bloodsample is taken, however, there is some-thing positive on which to work.

In the case of the machine, however, itall depends on its setting up, and themany functions involved. Anybody withany degree of knowledge in relation tothe balancing of electronic machines willknow that they are apt to go on the blinkas the result of the variation in voltagesand that sort of thing. I have no doubtfiltration circuits would be installed toeliminate that aspect; but there are notalways the answer to the problem.

PIltration circuits are installed in tele-vision sets, but when an aeroplane fliesoverhead quite often a wriggle appears onthe set. It is possible that when the testis being taken we will also get a wriggleon the machine which will mean that onewill have to wriggle off to the court, be-cause one will be faced with conclusiveevidence as a result of the breathalysertest. A Person might just as well write outhis cheque for £100 right away and send itin with the summons.

I think we have a long way to go beforethis sort of thing is perfected. I under-stand this was the brain child of an Arnen-can police commissioner. He experimentedwith it and obtained a certain degree ofsuccess. I daresay where electronics areinvolved it is possible that 99 times out of100 we will get a Proper reading, In ac-cord with what is desired by law, but therewiUl always be the odd case which willcause a lot of trouble.

In the case of blood samples, however.it would affect everybody in the same way.If a person did not like the manner inwhich the official test was analysed, hecould get this done somewhere else. Butthis cannot be done with the machine. Thedot appears on the line and that is con-clusive evidence-once this Bill becomeslaw it will be conclusive evidence-and nomatter bow well one might be able to walka tightrope without falling over or actingstrangely, a lawyer would be hard-pressedto prove that the person concerned hadnot been over-indulging to the extent thatwould make him culpable under the law.

The member for Perth said in his speechthat if this Bill did nothing else it wouldprovide statistics for us to work on forthe future. I like statistics; they are thebest things we can have. If we cannot getstatistics one way we can always get themanother. There is only one brewing com-pany in most States of the Commonwealth,and it is not possible to get the consump-tion of alcoholic liquor per capita in eachState and compare that figure with theaccident ratio. No doubt this would beavailable on an official basis and could beworked out by the Statistician's Depart-ment. The manufacturers, however, arevery loth to disclose their output eachyear. Why they want to hide it I do notknow.

I am a little indebted to the member forBunbury who recently asked questionsabout the alcoholic content of beer. Thoseof us who have made a study of this sub-ject over the years will know that the alco-holic content does not vary very much.The alcoholic content is derived from therecipe and the method of manufacturerather than something put in. as is theease with wines; so it is very even not onlyin Australia, but throughout the world.

In Australia It has not a great deal oftolerance at all; it varies between 4 percent. of alcohol in quantity and 4.5 percent. It is interesting to note that the 4per cent. relates to South Australia. If welook at the accident report per 10,.000vehicles in South Australia for each ofthe three years. 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64. we find the number of accidents thereis fantastically high. It has easily thehighest number of accidents. Yet thatState has the lowest alcoholic content Inits normal drinking beverage.

The accident rate could be attributableto many things. it could be attributed to6 o'clock closing: but Victoria also has 6o'clock closing, and it would no doubt in-terest members to know that the alcoholiccontent in that State is 4.2 per cent.,which is a little higher than that in SouthAustralia. Yet we find that of the main-land States it has the lowest accidentrate.

I agree that the carnage on our roadsis appalling, but when certain elementsexist in regard to certain situations there

2375

2378 ASSNMY.]

will always be accidents, whether they beon the Victorian roadways, on farms, orAnywhere else. Despite the introduction oflegislation there were 136.23 accidents inVictoria In 1901-82, and 138.17 accidents in1902-63 per 10,000 vehicle registrations.In 1963-64 the rate was 135.75, andthis applied In the most static Statein the Commonwealth. The figures havenot altered, despite all the nonsense whichthe Minister has Put forward that it isat great deterrent. It is Just like hang-ing as a deterrent for murder!

Finally, I would like to make a compari-son between two similar States-ueens-land and Western Australia-where thepopular beverage is beer and ale. If wewere to examine the liquor consumptionfigures we would find that beer was themost Popular drink, because of the torridclimate in these two States. In Queens-land the alcoholic content of beer is 4.5per cent., this being the highest in theCommonwealth, as against 4.2 per cent.in Western Australia. The followingfigures will give a comparison of the accid-ent rate Per 10,000 vehicles:-

Accidents Per 10,000 vehicles registered.Western

Queensland. Australia.1961-62 .. 137.45 1531631062-63 .. 140.02 154.21903-84 .... 148.25 151.64

if we tried to draw conclusions from suchstatistics to indicate the causes of roadaccidents we would not arrive at any con-clusive results.

Normally the average drinker in onemainland city of Australia consumes asmuch liquor as one in another mainlandcity. The consumption would balance outevenly for all States, yet we find a con-siderable difference in the number ofaccidents for each 10,000 vehicles. Notrue indication can be gained from suchfigures.

If It was the intention of the Ministerto Produce further statistics by the intro-duction of this measure to indicate a needfor compulsory tests, then he has not sub-mitted anything conclusive. By doing thishe would only prove that the previousstatistics were just as convincing as thosewhich he has obtained since.

I1 would like to comment on otheraspects of the editorial which appeared Intoday's Daily News. it is quite a goodarticle, and I shall continue to buy thisnewspaper when I am not suppliedwith one by the ILibrary Committee. Inone of Its articles, as the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition indicated, it gives theopinions of a number of people who havebeen interviewed. In many cases whenthese people are asked what they thinkabout a topic, such as compulsory breath-alyser tests, they, immediately reply thatthey think It Is a good idea.

Among those who were interviewed weretwo persons who were closely associatedwith insurance companies. Of coursethese People would be very much in favourof compulsory tests, because such testswould be of assistance in making actuarialsoundness even more sound. Also amongthose interviewed were a youth and twohousewives, one of whom was not verykeen on the compulsory aspect.

I agree with the member for Perth onone point. Democracy is founded oncompulsion--compulsIon for people to dothe things which the majority In thecommunity vote for. It cannot be anyother way, otherwise there would beanarchy or chaos. There must be adegree of compulsion in our Society, andall our laws compel people to obey them.If the law compels people Under certaincircumstances to undergo tests to deter-mine whether they are diseased Orinebriated, then it should be obeyed; butmy opposition to the legislation before usis levelled at the hit-and-miss methodswhich are proposed.

The second portion of the editorial towhich I have referred is worthy of analysis.It is as follows:-

Driving StandardsThe breathalyser does not measure

driving standards; It measures howmuch alcohol a driver has consumedrecently.

That Is very true. The test does not giveany indication whether the person whohas become Inebriated Is a good driver.He might be just as poor a driver whenhe is sober as when he is Inebriated. Ithas been proved that within limits theconsumption of several glasses of alcoholicbeverages is Inclined to sharpen the senses;but if more alcohol is consumed there isa tapering off In the sharpness, until thestage of inebriation is reached. It hasbeen proved positively that this Is theposition, and much research has beenundertaken overseas to determine howalcohol affects different people.

We can see some advantage in the useof alcohol. It seems to bring out somne-thing In a person, who normally is a poormixer. After a few drinks such a personoften begins to convense freely with others,and becomes quite acceptable to the socialgroup. In that respect I remember theremarks made by a prominent Person afew weeks ago who had made a study ofalcoholism. He said that despite all thebad effects of alcohol on the community,it also does some good in bringing peopleout of their shells, to a stage where theymix freely with others--a stage whichthey would not reach without the con-sumption of liquor. I do not recommendthis as a practice, but the observations ofthat authority on alcoholism have beenproven.

2376

(Tursday, 11 November, 1965.1 27

The editorial to which I have just refer-red goes on to say-

It can take no account of the varia-tion of a driver's reaction to a givenamount of alcohol.

The breathalyser can be a usefulaid to determining justly whether adriver is so intoxlcated as to be adanger. But this test should never initself be enough to convict.

That is exactly what will happen with thepassage of the Bill before us, as has hap-pened in the case of compulsory bloodtests. Victoria has been referred to bythe Minister as the outstanding Statewhich has used breathalysers. Continuingthe quotation-

It seems that the main effect InVictoria-which has used breathalyserssince 1981-has been simply to reducegreatly the prospects of a drinkingdriver defending himself.

It is a pity the honourable member who isapt to defend this did not have some Ideaof that before he made his speech. Con-tinuing-

Convictions are well up; the policeare smiling; erring motorists arelamenting.

And they will be here because In Victoriathey lament to the extent of only £50, butin this State they will lament to the ex-tent of £100 or more. To continue-

The trouble is that all this hasdone nothing to stop the road toil ris-ing In that State-though surely no-thing else would justify compulsorytesting.

That point has been abundantly made byspeakers on this side of the House. Whilewe cannot go along with the carnage onthe road, and particularly the associationof alcohol with driving, we must be ableto justify an alteration to an Act of Par-liament, when the severity of the proposedAct will impose a condition against thesubjects of the realm. The article finishesup with this-

And the high rate of conviction onany charge can be as clearly a pointerto injustice as to greater efficiency ofdetection.

This also must be abundantly true. Inall the circumstances, I would say the Mvin-later, in introducing this measure,, hasleft himself open to the advocates ofl gin-mickery as against the advocates of moresound scientific principles.

Even the member for Wembley-he neednot shudder, as we are not going to breath-alyse him-was rather clear in his exami-nation of the comparison of the blood test

(65)

as compared with the test of the breath-alyser machine, in that he gave some in-formation he received from London whiebindicated that if anything the breathalyserwas inclined to be on the side of the cul-prit. But that Is not good enough. Ifwe are going for something positive, wewill have to go for something we knowto be scientifically correct.

As far as I can determine, the best waywould be to wake blood testing compulsory.I do not like compulsory things, becausewe interfere with the liberty of a person;and sometimes when blood Is taken froma person, that person faints. It is difficult;and I do not know how we can get overthat, Perhaps the answer will be thatultimately we will have a machine that isperfect. That time will come, because itis like comparing the first type of crystalset to a modern-day transistor radio.Advances in all these things do occur; butsurely we are not to be the bunny rabbitsto be tested under these circumstanceswhen perfection has not been achieved,

I would say it will be a long while beforethese various contraptions are perfected.As I indicated by figures which I quoted,we have kept a control of the toll on ourroads. I know that is not good enough,but the only thing I can suggest to theMinister-as I have done before-Is to doaway with motorcars, which is an imprac-ticable proposition. If we did that peoplewould get killed because they fell off ahorse or they were kicked by a horse; wewould not achieve anything in the longrun.

All in all, if the Minister could showfigures each year to indicate that the ratioof the number of vehicles registered to thenumber of accidents had fallen, then theauthorities looking after our welfarewould be doing a reasonable Job. We wereadvised by the member for Balcatta thatthere are various ways in which to over-come a lot of the present shortcomings;and even recently I saw the same news-paper-which does not seem to hold thesame conservative attitude that it used to-run an editorial against all "Stop" signsand recommend the procedure I sug-gested to the Minister a long time ago. Heshould go around with an axe and chopthe "Stop" signs down and start again tomake sure the rules of the road are correct.

I think somebody said tonight that itshould become as automatic to give wayto a person on the right as it is to stopand start a car and go through its gears.One does not know one is doing it. itbecomes another sense after driving forsome time. However, if a person is notsure, with a modern automobile he isinclined to take the risk. We want to takePeople out of that stage. Even if drunken

2371

[ASSEMBLY.]

drivers are the ones causing accidents, itwould help them to give them a clearindication as to where they stand.

I am sure we are not particularly keen toapprehend them if they are doing nobodyany harm. What we want to ensure is thatthey do not harm other people. That iswhere their offence lies. On that scare Iwould like to say to the minister that hedoes not go far enough. He should amendthe Licensing Act so that all hotel barsmust display to drivers of vehicles theeff ects of the consumption of liquor andhow they are likely to be affected as far asbeing convicted on a drunken drivingcharge is concerned. That would be fairand proper.

Mr. Gayfer: You could reduce thealcoholic content.

Mr. JAMIESON: That cannot be done.Apparently the honourable member wasnot here when I discussed that matter.The alcoholic content is not placed inbeer; It develops according to the recipethat Is used.

Mr. Gayfer: Change the recipe.

Mr. JAMIESON: That would change theflavour and people would not like it,

Mr. Gayfer: There is flour in beer now.

Mr. JAMIESON: They have been puttingin flour for some time. What goes intoit is the brewer's prerogative. He mixesa number of ingredients such as sugar.malt, yeast, and hops; and when they areblended together in bulk, the processcreates the alcoholic content. If the recipewere altered it would be like going fromyour own wife's cooking to somebody else's-the taste is different.

Mr. Graham: That is for better or forworse!

Mr. JAMIESON- Our beers are GermanicIn origin and are brewed by a Germanicprocess. As I quoted to the House a whileago, the. Percentage of alcohol pretty wellright throughout the world does not varygreatly. it is about 3.5 per cent., 4.5 percent., or stronger in some of the thickales or lagers, such as Coopers In SouthAustralia, which might be up to 5 per cent.That is a very rare type of beer and isnot likely to be acceptable to most peopleunder normal drinking circumstances.

There are all these Problems toD contendwith in determining whether this will begood legislation or not; because, in myopinion, at the present time it has notbeen shown to be good legislation; andbefore any legislation is put on our Statutebook that Will make conviction conclusive,it should be cast iron in its entirety. There

should be no loopholes in it-no chanceof anything going wrong-and in this easethere is a chance of things going wrong.

Until we can get past that stage I willbe inclined to be opposed to this legislation.I am not opposed to doing something whichwill deter drivers from driving whilst underthe influence of liquor. As I said previously.the Minister could well do a lot more byinstructing hotels to indicate to driverswhat is involved when they drive theirvehicles after having drunk too muchliquor.

Then, of course, my legal friend fromPerth would know that if a barman con-tinues to ply a person with liquor when heknows that that person is getting underthe Influence and has to drive a truck later,and then that Person drives the truck andkills someone, section 7 of the CriminalCode might take a hand with that barmanwho was responsible. That is one of thethings we should Indulge a lot in.

Mr. Brady: Now we are getting some-where!

Mr. JAMIESON- The Licensing Courtitself is to blame for a lot of the problems.The court will now not grant a hotel alicense unless It provides acres and acresof parking space. Then what happens? Ihave mentioned this to the Minister before.He said, "They are not like you" or some-thing to that effect. He adopts that atti-tude of "holier than thou".

Mr. Craig: That is very nice to know.

Mr. JAMIESON: But we get used tothat. I suggested we should do somethingabout the number of vehicles encouragedto go to the various hotels. If aLbreathalyser were used at these hotels ona Friday or Saturday night, probably halfthe patrons would have to pay towardsConsolidated Revenue.

I do not blame the drinkers so muchas those who encourage them. The con-ditions are nice and are made to attractpeople. They are made to sell the waresof the breweries and, as a consequence, wecould not be in nicer surroundings. Patronstend to let the time drift by and they canbecome unnecessarily involved in long ses-sions of consumption of alcohol.

The licensing Court must play Its part,but it has not been doing so. It has beenreticent in its duty to the people of thiscountry by encouraging such a large nurn-ber of motorists to become so much in-volved In alcoholic consumption at thesehotels. This is a matter which needs look-ing into and it needs the attention of theMinister.

The Licensing Court should be compelledby regulation to order publicans to placea chart in their hotels. it should be similar

[Thursday, 11 November, 1965.] 31

to the one drawn up by the Minister andissued to members, but on a more elaboratescale. In that way patrons would not havethe excuse they have now. At present theysay, "I did not know. I bad 13 pots ormiddies and I did not know how bad Iwas." They would not have that excuseif they could look at a chart at the bar.Before long it would be common know-ledge the same as a score on a dartboard. If this were done, then-and onlythen-would we be moving along the roadto clearing up the problem-if it is a prob-lem; and Victoria has not proved that it is.

MR. CRAIG (Toodyay-Minister forTraffic) [11i. p.m.]: Firstly, might I thankthose who took part in the debate on thisBill which, quite frankly, I expected to becontroversial. At the same time I did notexpect it to receive the opposition in themanner it was expressed by some membersthis evening.

The Government is, and I in particularam. criticised from time to time for nottaking proper action to halt the rising roadtoll. The Government over the past fewyears, to my knowledge anyhow since Ihave been Minister, has done a lot towardstrying to counter certain aspects that havebeen the cause of accidents on our roads.There is no need for me to refer to them Indetail at this time, but I would be happlyto supply the information to anyone whodesired it.

Here is another instance where the Gov-ernment wants to take some strong actionagainst the menace of the drunken driver.It has been said that we cannot producefacts and figures to show that such a mea-sure as Is proposed in this Bill will act to-wards reducing the accidents from thiscause. It has also been said that It willnot act as a deterrent against drivers whocommit this particular type of offence.

I have produced figures from time totime, and they have also been referred tothis evening by some members on thisside, to prove that we do have facts andfigures as to the fatalities involving driverswho have consumed too much alcohol. Sofor as acting as a deterrent Is concerned.surely members must appreciate the pointthat if the legislation is passed-which Isincerely hope it will be-it will serve asa deterrent! Surely it must influence thedriver who has been drinking socially or,particularly, the person who frequentlyover-indulges in alcohol! Surely he mustappreciate the fact that if he is detecteddriving his vehicle he will be subjected to atest as proposed in this Bill! Surely it mustact as a deterrent!I The Deputy Leaderof the Opposition mentioned this at length,but I will refer to It again later on.

I look upon this as being a mat-ter on which it is the Government'sresponsibility to take some action, and i1the Government did not do so, then theOpposition would have some cause tocriticise. I say this is a sincere and genuineattempt to overcome this particular menaceon our roads.

Some speakers mentioned the effective-ness of the Victorian legislation, and someseem to have a doubt as to Itseffectiveness because they construe itrather as an advantage to the police to laymore charges for drunken driving and soincrease the revenue. That may be so, butI know that the Victorian measure was notintroduced for that purpose. The funda-mental purpose was exactly the same asthe purpose of the Introduction of this Billhere.

I cannot help but feel that the resultsfrom this measure will indeed be beneficialin many ways and will contribute in nosmall manner to a reduction of the roadtoll and also towards a reduction inthe number of cases of drunken driv-ing. But I will make this point: ThisBill does give protection to the innocent.In other words, the innocent person hasnothing to fear under this measure. Itseems that some speakers appear more con-cerned with protecting the rights of theoffender than with protecting the rights ofthe person who has been offended.

Mr. Jamieson: Here it comes! The usualline!

Mr. Graham: flat is totally wrong, ofcourse.

Mr. Jamieson: The usual line!

Several members interjected.The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Mitchell):

Order please!Mr. CRAIG: I can talk over them, if you

want me to, Sir.

Mr. Jamieson: Just try to!

Mr. CRAIG: I repeat that the impressionI gained from listening to the opinions ex-pressed by some members opposite-andthe impression I feel sure is shared by othermembers of this House, on both sides-Isthat some of them are more concerned withprotecting the rights of the off ender ratherthan the rights of tbe offended.

Several members InterJected.

Mr. Jamieson: I never could under-stand the mind of the Fascist.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Mitchell):order!

Mr. CRAIG: It is not right, accordingto some members, to compel a driver,suspected of being under the influence.

2310

2380 (ASSEMBLY.]

to undertake a, test even though he mayhave been the cause of someone beingkilled or maimed.

Mr. Graham: More deaths have beencaused by sober people!

Several members interjected.

Mr. CRAIG: The interjections are con-firming my opinion.

Several members interjected.

Mr. Jamieson: I never could understandthe mind of a Fascist.

Mr. Tonikin: Where is this evidence?

Mr. Graham: Claptrap!I

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Mitchell):Order!

Mr. CRAIG: I can carry on. Sir. Thave here an extract from The MedicalJournal of the 6th November, 1965, andhere I am grateful for the contributionof the member for Wembley, with hismedical knowledge. I will quote from theMedical Journal of the 6th November,1965. The article does not confine itselfnecessarily to this particular issue ofbreathalysers or blood tests. I quote asfollows:-

Death and debility from trafficaccidents have reached such alarmingproportions that they have now be-come one of our greatest medicalproblems. Already the death ratefrom road accidents is surpassed onlyby those two greatest killers, heartdisease and cancer. The tragedy ofthis problem Is even greater when itis considered that young and other-wise healthy members of the com-munity are predominantly affected,and that in the vast majority of in-stances the so-called accidents areentirely avoidable. Since the matterconcerns the whole community, thetendency with most of us has beento leave the problems for some otherfellow to attend to. However, as itis now a major medical problem, itshould Concern our profession moreintimately than any other, and we asa Profession must assume our shareof responsibility by tackling this dis-ease like any other killing disease. Wemust individually and collectively givea lead to ensure the introduction ofeffective Prophylactic measures aimedat eradicating this scourge from thecommnunity.

Although there is much that canand must be done, It Is plain that thetask will not be easy. Opposition canCome from the Unexpected as well asfrom the expected Place-for example,from vested interests, from irrespon-sible motorists who are relve'tant to

mend their ways, from certain ideal-ists who object to police being givenany effective authority, from politi-cians who believe that any action willresult in loss of votes and from JohnCitizen himself, who believes thataccidents happen only to other peopleand do not directly concern him.Many of the obvious measures arenecessarily unpopular; otherwisethey would already have been intro-duced. There will be cries of "thecost is too great," but who can put aprice on one human life, let alone1,000 lives and many thousands ofdebilitated people each year? In anycase, the initial outlay would be re-paid many times in savings of time,petrol and other economics, to saynothing of the earning capacity ofvictims. The familiar cries of "lossof freedom" and "Police State' willbe heard when more rigid road dis-cipline Is demanded, but who woulddeny the need to restrict the freedomto kill so wantonly on our roads, andwho but the guilty fear enforcementof the law?

I think that is most appropriate. Tocontinue-

The alcoholic driver combines in-creased confidence with decreasedability when In charge of a motorvehicle.

Further on it states-The possible solutions to the prob-

lem arc not Primarily medical, butthere are such great medical impica-tions in it that our profession shouldbe taking a lead in rousing the com-munity to a mighty effort and stand-ing behind such bodies as the Aus-tralian Road Safety Council when Itmakes sound but unpopular recom-mendations and behind Governmentsthat are prepared to act firmly.

The suggestion for this particular meas-ure emanated from the National SafetyCouncil. As pointed out by the memberfor Perth and the member for Wemibley,we are grasping at straws in attemptingto try to meet various problems. We haveno statistics at all;, nothing reliable as tothe part alcohol plays in this problem. Thisis one of the reasons for the introductionof this Bill. It will not only act as a de-terrent, but will also provide the researchwe so vitally need and upon which wecan act.

Because of that the opposition does notagree with it. We are supposed to betaking away the rights of the individual.I do not think the innocent have anythingto fear with regard to this legislation;nothing at all. Why the opposition isso concerned, I do not know. I would liketo feel that it was a party decision to op-pose the Bill.

2380

[Thursday, 11 November, 1065.1 28

Mr. Graham: There has not been aparty meeting since the Bill was Intro-duced.

Mr. CRAIG: The conscience of themembers of the Opposition is the same asours; they should want to play a part inreducing the road toll, but apparentlythat Is not so.

Mr. Graham: You have not got a con-science.

Mr. Jamieson: That is nonsense.

Mr. CRAIG: That is all the member forBeeloo can say; nonsense!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Mitchell);Order, order!I

Mr. CRAIG: I will quote some evidence.Mr. Tonkin: Where is this evidence?Mr. CRAIG: The member for Melville

will have to be patient; I have a dozenmatters to deal with before I reach him.He is at the bottom of the list.

I will deal briefly with those who didmake some reference to the Bill; but be-fore I do I am reminded of a Bill whichwas being discussed in another place-theWeights and Measures Act AmendmentBill. It was decided to increase thepenalty, by amendment, and one honour-able member, Mr. Dolan, whose opinion Ivalue, said "Anything that gives addedprotection to the public is worth while inany legislation." I thought that was veryappropriate as far as this legislation isconcerned.

Mr. Davies: We suggested increasedpenalties In this Chamber. You shouldbrush up your memory.

Mr. CRAIG: The member for Balcatta,I think, was struggling to protest hisopposition to the Bill. I thought my inter-jections helped him, but nevertheless I feelhe was really struggling. I appreciate thepoint that he has had only a couple ofdays to study the contents of the Bill; buthe being a highly intelligent member, Iam sure his intelligence was not taxed toany extent to digest the few pages con-tained in this Bill. The Bill more orless summarises the thoughts or opinionsand decisions, virtually, of the Govern-roent which had been expressed throughthe Press over several months. Themember for Beeloo must have improvedhis opinion of the Press. Today It is awonderful Press!

Mr. Jamieson: I said It is becoming moreopen-minded.

Mr. CRAIG: I think it was only a fewdays ago that his opinion was entirely theopposite. It reminded me of what some-body on the back benches said-he changeshis opinion like the proverbial shirt. Ithink that is appicable.

The honorable member said nocountry in the British Commonwealth hasthis legislation other than Australia. Thatmay be so, but it is extensively employedin most of the European countries, theUnited States, and also in Canada. TheUnited Kingdom has stated that it will beintroducing legislation on these lines Inthe near future.

Mr. Graham: To make it compulsory?

Mr. CRAIG: I say this quite sincerely.I feel that the member for Balcatta has,in the past, contributed quite a lot in theinterests of road safety. He was associatedwith the foundation of the Western Aus-tralian Road Safety Council and thereforeit came to me as a surprise to learn of hisopposition to this particular measure.

With reference to the member forPilbara, I do not know what he wasreally getting at. He said he thought thisBill would not do what it is hoped it willdo. He gave other reasons for accidents,which reasons have not been acted on. Ican assure him that quite a lot of actionhas been taken-llustrative and collectiveaction towards meeting this problem. Wehave introduced the probationary drivinglicense scheme; the licensing of drivinginstructors--

Mr. Davies: That is not going too well,either.

Mr. CRAIG: -education through theSafety Council and through schools; anda dozen and one other measures. I think,from his words, he Is not necessarilyopposed to the BIll.

Mr. Bickerton: You may be sure that Iam. I can tell you at the third readingstage.

Mr. CRAIG: The honourable memberexpressed the need for road safety educa.-tion and I agree with him on that point.

Mr. Bickerton: The Minister should beagainst it!

Mr. CRAIG: The honourable membermissed my point. I agree that there isneed for increased education.

Mr. Bickerton: I thank the Minister.

Mr. CRAIG: He was also critical of thebreathalyser unit and critical of theoperator, and so on, and so forth.

Mr. Bickerton: What about letting theoperator be tested?

Mr. CRAIG: The question of breath-alysers was referred to by other speakers.but I inform the House that the unitshown was only a demonstration unitwhich was brought here for the benefit ofmembers. It was to show the type ofinstrument and how it functions. It is to

2381.

2382 [ASSEMBLY.]

be operated by a trained staff of morethan one, who have to be qualified to doso. The Bill Itself even refers to this. Theparagraph reads as follows:-

(3) The Director of the Govern-ment Chemical Laboratories may,from time to time,-

(a) certify a person as having thequalifications necessary fordetermining the percentageof alcohol present in bodilysubstances:

(b) certify a person as beingcompetent to operate breathanalysing equipment;

The sergeant of police who operated theunit for the information of members wasnot a trained operator. His knowledge wasonly obtained from the pamphlet that heread, or the instructions that came withthe unit. It was purely a demonstrationunit and so I would hope that clears upsome of the points of the member forBeeloo.

I1 must commend the member for Perthon the speech he made. I think it wasexcellent.

Mr. Graham: You needed support badly,Mr. CRAIG: It was received with envy

by some members opposite. I think it wasa very clear explanation of what the Billcontains.

Mr. Bickerton: Of course It was.Mr. CRAIG: And I think the House is

indebted to him. He assessed the value ofthis particular measure.

I think it was the member for Kalgoorliewho was concerned with the liberty of thesubject and, to quote his words, he con-sidered this distasteful legislation. Againit emphasises my view that he is moreconcerned with the rights of the offender.He went to some length quoting from avolume of the Victorian ParliamentaryDebate&, but unfortunately he did notcomplete the story. I am not goingto weary the House with the other part:I am concerned only with the hard, coldfacts of the drunken driver-

Mr. Moir: You have not given us anyyet.

Mr. CRAIG: -when he is in control ofa lethal weapon. In such cases action iswarranted. I should like to commend themember for Wembley, too, for his contri-bution,

Mr. Jamieson* You scratch my back.Mr. CRAIG: His speech, too, was re-

ceived with envy. The letter from Dr.Thompson that he read was very conciseand to the point, but even he expressedsome doubts as to the authenticity of

certain makes of breathalyser machines.However, I can assure him, and the Housegenerally, that a full investigation andinquiry will be made into all types of unitsthat are available throughout the world toensure that if and when this legislationbecomes law we will have only the mostsuitable type of equipment available. Forthe information of members, the machinescost about £300 each. However, the hon-ourable member proposes to move anamendment with which I am in accord.

The member for Fremantle said that hesupported any measure that would reducethe road toll. I was pleased to hear this,But he said that he had certain reserva-tions: he considered that the Bill hadlimited features about it.

Now to proceed to the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition. He said no steps shouldbe taken unless we were certain: and therewas no proof that this Bill will be a deter-rent against drunken driving. He said itwas an assumption only. Maybe it is anassumption only.

Mr, Tonkin: Oh, I see!Mr. CRAIG; All right! Keep your "Ohs'

to yourself for a minute!Mr. Tonkin: Where is this evidence?

Mr. CRAIG: It may be only an assump-tion that it will act as a deterrent:, buthow can the Deputy Leader of the Opposi-tion or anybody else accept the fact thatit is a deterrent? How can he accept itas a deterrent? I ask him that. I andothers think it will act as aL deterrent andif there is only a chance of its being adeterrent it is something that should beapplied because it will have served itspurpose.

Mr. Tonkin: Where is this evidence youwere going to produce?

Mr. CRAIG: Be patient for a little while.The member for Kalgoorlie referred to aVictorian Mansard and I shall refer to thesame one-or I think it is the same one.It is volume 265 of the 1961-62 session andit covers the Legislative Council debatesin Victoria. I quote from a speech madeby The Hon. L. H. S, Thompson-

However, a survey of the results ob-tained gives cause for optimism. Forexample, of the six countries with thebest accident rate, five have compulsorychemical tests in one form or another.With respect to the rate of fatalityper 10.000 vehicles, we find that in theUnited States of America it Is 5.4. Ofcourse, compulsory tests are not pro-vided for throughout America; butnine States have passed legislation Inthis connection. In New Zealand theratio Is 5.5; in Norway, 6.7; in Prance,7.1; in Sweden, 7.1: and in Belgium,7.2. It does not automaticaly followthat because there are compulsory

2382

(Thursday, 11 November, 1965.) 33

chemical tests In five of the six coun-tries that is the reason for the lowfatality rate, but it does suggest thatit may have made a positive contri-bution.

Then he goes on further-In some countries, there has been afarm of compulsory blood testing. Forexample, it has been operating in Nor-way since 1926 and in Sweden since1935, I want to correct a commonmisconception that In those countriesdrunken driving is no problem becauseof compulsory blood tests. It Is stilla problem in those countries, and Dr.Bowden's report illustrates that veryclearly. Again, It is found that therehas been a striking reduction in theaccident rate in some areas wherecompulsory chemical tests have beenintroduced. For example, in Paristhe vehicle population between 1953and 1958 rose from 2,400,000 to3,400,000. In 1954 legislation wasenacted introducing compulsory chemi-cal tests for drunken drivers, and It isinteresting to note that although thenumber killed in 1953 was 437 therehad been a reduction in 1958 to 301.The number injured dropped from27,300 to 10,775. and the materialdamage accidents decreased from230,000 to 145.000. That is a strikingillustration of how the accident ratecan be cut. Dr. Bowden, after givingthose figures, suggested that therewere other factors contributing to thatreduction, and I do not doubt thatf act.

I cannot go beyond the facts. The Na-tional Safety Council cannot go beyondfacts and figures, and the council usedthis Information for its figures when itmade its submissions to me some monthsago.

I feel that what the Government is do-ing is the correct attitude to adopt. Wecan see from overseas countries thatdrunken driving is causing fatalities andthe action that has been taken has beenthe means of reducing fatalities caused bythese drivers. In any case. I do not seewhy we have to wait for action to be takenin other States of the Commonwealth oroverseas countries. When things are ob-vious to us here why should we not takeaction without waiting for other people toguide us?

Mr. Evans: Why don't you do that withthe workers' compensation legislation?

Mr. CRAIG: The member for Beeloo re-ferred to the 800 blood tests that had beentaken In the case of suspected drunkendrivers over a period between 1959 and195, 1 think it was. They must have beentaken voluntarily. Those drivers musthave offered to have their blood tested, and

it suggests to me that the police officermust have very good grounds before hearrests a person for drunken driving. Apoint was made by the member for Perthon an interpretation of this particularmatter, and If such a Person had beenarrested as a last resort uo doubt he wouldreadily volunteer to have a blood test takenin order to take the opportunity, possibly,of its proving that he was not under theinfluence of liquor and therefore was notguilty.

The honourable member also said thathe Preferred the taking of blood tests,Personally, I do too, but it is felt that thebreathalyser unit does offer a wore con.venient form of testing and possibly iwould overcome many objections thaiwould be raised by people who were re-quested to have blood samples taken.

I have been fairly brief in. answeringthe points raised by members, but I sin-cerely trust Parliament will accept thilegislation, We can only learn by ex-perience. I sincerely hope and trust thaiif and when it is passed it will makesome contribution towards reducing owiroad toll. Even If it saves only one lifethe Bill will have served some purposeand I comnmend it to the House.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

in2 CommitteeThe Chairman of Committees (Mr. W

A. Manning) in the Chair; Mr. Crai6(Minister for Traffic) in charge of the Bill

Clauses 1 to 3 put and passed.

Clause 4. Section 32A repealed and see.tion substituted-

Dr. HENN: During my second readingspeech I Indicated I would be much hap,pier if the person suspected of beingdrunk whilst In charge of a motorcar werallowed to apply to have his own doctoattend to take a sample of his bloodTherefore I move an amendment--

Page 4, line 27-Insert after th,word "practitioner' the words "noiinated by himself but if no such practitloner Is available within the tintspecified in subsection (8) of thisection then such medical practitionemay be nominated by the member athe Police Force."

Mr. CRAIG: The amendment is quitacceptable because it is only in line wit!section 32 of the Act at present whicldeals with a person while that person Idriving a vehicle under the influence cliquor. As the amendment is in accordancwith an existing section of the Act, I hayno objection to it,

2383

2384 ASSEMBLY.]

Amendment put and passed.

Mr. DtTRACK: I move an amendment--Page 4, line 30-Insert after the

word "requirement" the words "bythe member of the Police Force underwhose authority the person then is".

I have already explained the purpose ofthe amendment in my second readingspeech but to recapitulate, as the phrasingis at the moment, it is vague as to whowould give effect to it. However, the obli-gation is clearly imposed on the policeofficer who is In charge of the testing or theperson who Is subjected to it. That beingso, the police officer, having a statutoryduty imposed upon him would be commit-ting a breach of the Criminal Code if he didnot give effect to the provision.

Amendment put and passed.

Dr. HENN: As a consequential amend-ment is required following the amend-ment I have Just moved, I move an amend-ment-

Page 4, line 41-Insert after theword "Practitioner" the words "nomi-nated by himself, but if no suchpractitioner is available within thetime specified in subsection (6) of thissection then such medical practitionermay be nominated by the member ofthe Police Force."

Amendment put and passed.

Mr. EVANS: On page 6 is set out pro-Posed new section 32C which clause 4seeks to insert in the Act. I would par-ticularly refer members to paragraph (g).I cannot see how we can justify an analystgiving evidence after determining theamount of alcohol in a blood sample andclaiming that that was the amount ofalcohol present in the blood before thesample was taken. The provision. in para-graph (1) is more logical, hut I would likethe Minister to justify the retention ofparagraph (g).

Mr. CRAiG: This is included because theaccident might have occurred some dis-tance away-possibly some three hours'journey from the nearest medical practi-tioner-and the sample of blood Is taken.We all know that the body eliminates acertain percentage of alcohol per hour-Ithink it is 0.2 per cent. From this calcula-tion a properly-qualified analyst couldestimate what would have been the alcoholcontent at the time of the accident. Thispoint is acceptable by the courts.

Mr. EVANS: The Minister's explanationdoes not satisfy Me. I notice this provisiondoes not appear in the Victorian legislationwhich blazed the trail f or this type of legis-lation. This would be no more than a cal-culated guess on the part of the analyst.and we should not impose such a provision

on him. I would like your guidance, Mr.Chairman, as to whether I can move todelete paragraph (g).

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. W. A. Manning):The honourable member may move todelete paragraph (g) if he wishes.

Mr. EVANS: I move an amendment-Page 7, lines 16 to 23-Delete Para-

graph (g).Dr. HENN: I think the bonourable mem-

ber feels the analyst's assessment wouldnot be accurate because of the time thathas elapsed between the taking of thesample and its examination. If that is sohe has only to consult an analyst to getthe answer I hope to give him. It IS knownexactly how much alcohol is excreted bythe lungs in a given time, and supposingsome time has elapsed between the timewhen the person involved drank the alcohol,and the time when the specimen was taken,allowance would be made for that period.

Mr. Evans:- The analyst knows theamount of alcohol at the time he examinesthe blood, but how can he give a determina-tion of the blood before the sample wastaken?

Dr. HENN., Does the honourable mem-ber mean at the time it was taken and the31 hours previously when the accidentoccurred?

Mr. Evans: Yes.

Dr. HENN: It is known how soon alcoholcan be absorbed into the bloodstream, andit is also known how it is excreted throughthe lungs.

Mr. Evans: What about the well-knownmethod of excretion?

Dr. HENN: Alcohol is converted into car-bon dioxide and one other constituent,which I cannot remember at the moment.one does not pass alcohol through thebladder; it is converted into carbon dioxideand this other constituent.

Mdr. JAMIESON: This is a bit more hit-and-miss than the honourable memberwould have us believe.

Dr. Henn: You would make it as hit-and-miss as you possibly could.

Mr. JAMVIESON: If the honourablemember wishes to deal with reason, lethim do so, but if hie wishes to use someairy-fairy idea, that is his business. I Willuse my own hypothesis.

Let us suppose a person has severaldrinks in a country hotel, gets into hisvehicle, and drives several hundred yardsdown the street. He meets with anaccident, and will obviously smell prettyheavily of alcohol. At that stage the testwill not be effective, even if he had drunk

2384

[Thursday, 11 November. 1985.1 23B5

half a bottle of whisky straight off. If thesample were taken straightaway, either byblood or by breathalyser, hie would not beaffected. But In three hours' time theanalyst will take a sample and assess theresult back to three hours previously. I con-tend he will not get a true determinationof the exact position. The alcohol musttake time to work and be absorbed Into thesystem. The member for Wembley knowsand admits that.

Dr. Henn: You are talking about thePerson who has drunk alcohol veryquickly.

Mr. JAIESON: Yes.Dr. Henn: That is a different kettle of

fish. It must be absorbed into the blood-stream.

Mr. JAMIESON: But If the analyst doesnot analyse till three hours later, his assess-ment back on the figures he haswould indicate the fellow was pickled,and not in a reasonable state of sobrietyat the time of the accident. It is not soeasy to get over the position as the mem-ber for Wembley would have us believe.

The member for Kalgoorlie stated thatthe Victorian Act does not contain thisprovision, yet the legislation in that Stateis administered smoothly. We should notinclude a provision which would bringforth legal argument.

Mr. CRAIG: There is nothing airy-fairyabout this provision in new section 32C.It could be of considerable assistance incoroner's inquiries, and would enable thecoroner to form an assessment of thedegree of intoxication of the person whosedeath he is investigating. In other casesthe magistrate could form his own opinionas to the value of the evidence producedby a qualified analyst. Although Victoriadoes not have this provision, there is noreason why the legislation in Western Aus-tralia should not have it.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister notagree that this provision calls upon theanalyst to wake an estimation, and notto make an analysis?

Amendment Put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes- -13Mr. Bickerton Mr. JamiesonMr. Brady Mr. KellyMr. Davies Mr. MoirMr. Evans Mr. EhatiganMr. Graham Mr. TonkinMr. Hall Mr. NortonMr. W. Hegney (Teller)

Noes-ISMr. Borenl Dr. HennfMr. Craig Mr. MarshallMr. pont Mr. MitchellMr. Durack Mr. NalderMr. miiott Mr. NlinioMr. Gayler Mr. O'ConnorMr. an den Mr. O'NeilMr. Onto*d Mr. WilliamsMr. Hart Mr. Runelmin

(Teller)

(88)

AyesMr. MayMr. RowberryMr. HawkeMr. J. HegneyMr. CurranMr. SewellMr. TomsMr. Pletcher

PairsNoes

Mr. BrandMr. CourtMr. HutchinsonMr. LewisMr. 1. W. ManningMr. BurtMr. RushtonMr. Crommelin

Majority against-S.Amendment thus negatived.

Clause, as Previously amended, put andpassed.

Title put and passed.

ReportBill reported, with amendments, and the

report adopted.

STATE FORESTSRevocation of Dedication: Assembly's

Resolution--Concil's Message

Message from the Council received andread notifying that it had concurred inthe Assembly's resolution.

OFFENDERS PROBATION ANDPAROLE ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Receipt and First Reading

Bill received from the Council; and, onmotion by Mr. novell (Minister for Lands).read a first time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTAMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Conference Managers' Report

MR. NALDER (Katanning-Miflister forAgriculture) (11.4 pm.]: I have to reportthat the managers appointed by the As-sembly met the managers appointed bythe Council, and reached the followingagreement:-

No. 1.Amend to read as follows: Clause

2. line 6-Delete "twenty" and In-sert "fifteen" In lieu.

No. 2.Amend to read as follows: Clause

5. line 32-Delete "twenty" and In-sert "fifteen" in lieu.

No. 3.Amend to read as follows: Clause

15, line 9-Delete "twenty" and in-sert "fifteen" in lieu.

Nos. 4 and 5.Clause 18:

agreed not toments N'os. 4

The managers haveproceed with amend-and 5 made by the

2386 [ASSEMLY.]

Legislative Assembly but to insertthe following amendment in the Billin lieu thereof:-

Page 8-To delete all wordsafter the word "is" In line 9 downto and including the word "for-bidden" in line 19 and substitutethe following-

less than fifteen per centumof those entitled to votethereat the raising of the loanIs approved, but if the rate-payers who vote at the pollnumber not less than fifteenper centum of those entitledto vote thereat, and If amajority of the valid votescast are against the loan, orthe valid votes cast againstthe loan are equal In numberto those in favour of the loan,the raising of the loan is for-bidden.

I move-That the report be adopted.

MR. JAMIESON (Beeloo) [11.6 pin.]:I am against this report being adopted;and I feel we should all be against Itas it will place local government in aridiculous position with regard to somefeatures. It will be in a hopeless postion.One department will experience difficultyas, before a local authority can implementa compulsory fruit-fly baiting scheme inan area, 15 per cent. of the ratepayerswill have to vote at the referendum. Thatis a ridiculous position for any localauthority to be put in. it is not apersonal affair; and it might be the desireof the great meajority of the shire to 'havesuch a scheme; and it might be the de-sire of 90 per cent, of those voting at anelection, but because only 14 per cent.vote at that election-which is quite im-personal; they are not being asked to votefor a person-the scheme cannot be imx-plem~ented in that district. These schemesare desirable; and it will now be harderthan ever to implement such a scheme.

The Minister is working against his owndepartment by proposing such a foolishmethod as this. He would have beenbetter advised had he discarded the wholelot than accept a proposal that will makethings hard for the administrators of adistrict to implement one of these schemes.I am sure he will agree there is a lotof sense in what I am saying in respect ofthis one particular feature of local govern-ment. People simply do niot go out andvote at the polls. There was one held theother day which had a fair amount ofsponsorship and only 15.1 per cent. voted.

Who Is to be responsible for getting thepeople to vote? Is it to be the respon-sibility of the councillors to canvass people

at their homes to go out and vote forsomething which is desirable? I do notthink that is a Job for members of thevarious wards in local government to haveto do. It Is at task that should notreasonably be expected of them, but theMinister is now throwing that task onthem before they can implement a fruit-fly baiting scheme In their district.

Because people are not interested In vot-ing, a Particular scheme cannot be Imple-mented. That is not a fair thing, if mostof the people desire the scheme. Thepeople who are interested enough to voteshould not be penalised; and the Ministeris doing them a great disservice by ac-cepting this proposal.

Question put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Mr. novellMr. CraigMr. DunnMr. DurackMr. m~ilotMr. GayferMr. GraydonMr: OuthrieMr. HantDr. Henn

Mr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. DaviesMr. GrahamnMr. HallWr. W. Begney

Ayes-IS9Mr. W. A. ManningMr. MarahallMr. Mitchell.Mr. NalderMr. NimmroMr. O'ConnorMr. OlfellMr. WIliamsMr. Runciman

Noes-U_1Mr. JamiesonMr. KellyMr MoLTMr. ithatiganMr. TonkinMr. Norton

(T'eller)Majority for-7.

Question thus passed and a messageaccordingly returned to the Council.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

MEL NALDER (Katanning-Deputy Pre-mier) [11.11 p.m.]: I move-

That the House do now adjourn.

In moving this motion I would like to ad-vise members that it is intended to siton Wednesday next at 2.15 p.m. and onFriday next from 11 am. until 6 p.m.

House adjourned at 11.12 p.mf.

2386