It is 2025 when you are asked for advice. Now for some background.

On the day in question, Fred Nerk resides, albeit temporarily, in a 2.5 star motel, Paradise for Ever. Fred drives a 1997 Toyota Corolla.

An inspector (John) appointed under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 (Vic) ('the 1985 Act') arrives at the motel and requests Wilma, the manager, that he be shown to Fred Nerk's room for an inspection pursuant to the 1985 Act. After ringing Fred Nerk, Wilma tells the inspector that she and Fred Nerk both refuse consent for the inspector to enter Fred's room. The inspector insists that, where temporary accommodation is provided for vehicle drivers, he does not need consent to exercise his powers of inspection under the 1985 Act.

As a result, the motel manager contacts the law firm at which you work. The manager at the firm (Mary) in turn asks for your immediate involvement. Mary asks you to determine if Fred's room is a 'place for vehicle drivers' within the meaning of s 16(3) of the 1985 Act. In the course of answering that question she asks you to give detailed attention to interpreting the words 'place for vehicle drivers' (the unit of inquiry) in the context of s 16(3) and other relevant context.

In the course of answering the questions asked by Mary, frame competing constructions of the unit of inquiry. One construction will support the inspector's wish to enter the room. The other will support Fred's wish for the inspector not to enter the room in the circumstances.

Assume that, apart from s 16 of the 1985 Act, the requirements for a valid exercise of the Inspector's power of entry and inspection (reasonable belief, etc) are not at issue. At the same time, also assume (for Fred) that s 16(1) is not at issue.

Interpret the possible meaning of place for vehicle drivers and provide an opinion on what would be the favored construction in this case.