Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)



Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)


Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 27 February 1990 sinecures from your government 1 ike every previ ous member you have ever had. I can guarantee that that is one damn thing that I will not be doing. With hi s blatant pursuit of pol itical objectives, thi s mini ster has disgraced himself and he has disgraced his portfolio. He has disgraced the government by hi s blatant pursuit of pol itical objectives. That is what thi s speech says: 'I do not gi ve a damn about the people of the Northern Territory'. The entire, damn speech says: 'I do not give a damn about the people of the Northern Territory'. Mr VALE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I find the language being used constantly by the honourable member to be rather offensive. Secondly, his speech is starting to beginning to become repetitious. Thirdly, I am worried about his blood pressure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I do think that the member for Nhulunbuy might be a little less provocative. He could make his point just as well. Mr LEO: Mr Deputy Speaker, when I enjoy your protection and I am not continually provoked by the gaggle opposite, I will certainly control my language and my tone of voice. I ask any reasonable person from either side of this House to go through the minister's speech. He attempted to knock down every single point in the Prime Minister's tentative plan. Not a single objection that he made stands up. He defeated his own argument when he talked about the 0.05% blood alcohol limit. He said himself that statistics show that the average person involved in a road accident has a blood alcohol level of 0.17%. I ask, therefore, what difference does it make whether the legal limit is 0.08% or O. 05%? What is the damn difference? There is no difference. Once again, the problem lies in the policing of the limit. That brings us to the fifth proposal in the Prime Minister's plan, which is to increase enforcement to ensure that 1 in 4 dri vers are random breath tested in a year. That is the problem. I do not think that it makes much difference whether it is 0.05% or 0.08% but, in the interests ,of a national code, I think it should be a uniform figure throughout the country. The important thing is that it must be policed. That is the problem at the moment. In relation to national licensing for heavy vehicles, I will tell members what happens at the moment. Every truck driver who drives interstate within Australia has a state licence from each state in Austra 1 i a. If they are arrested for DUI, they simp ly use another state's licence. That is what happens, and it is so easy to do. Anybody in Australia can do it. You simply pull out another piece of paper. What is wrong with. a national 1 icensing scheme for heavy truck and bus drivers? There is nothi ng wrong with it, and I cannot see why any mi n i ster woul d object to it. Mr Perron: Do you reckon Tasmania has the same road system as the Northern Territory? Mr LEO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that even the Chief Minister, with his limited capacity for comprehension, would understand that no matter what the terrain, no matter what part of Australia is involved, no matter whether it contains open highways or urban streets, it is still quite easy to have a speed limit for the nation. That would not seem to be terribly difficult to 8794