Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 6 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 2117..
MR SPEAKER: It is my view that Mr Coe has interjected quite a lot during question time and Mr Hargreaves has not interjected as much. As I think you have probably observed, members get a little bit of latitude and Mr Coe has clearly pushed that latitude more than Mr Hargreaves has. Mr Hargreaves would be getting close, I suspect. A supplementary question, Mr Doszpot.
MR DOSZPOT: Minister, given that Professor Bradley said that CIT would suffer without structural change, why did you not meet with her, and what actual structural changes are you making?
DR BOURKE: As I have previously advised the Assembly, no structural changes are going to be made. It has all been put on hold. It is a matter for the next Assembly, as I have already said.
Mr Doszpot: He just doesn't answer questions, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot, I cannot force the minister to use specific words. But you now have a supplementary question.
MR DOSZPOT: Minister, is the cancelling of courses an element of your plans for structural change?
DR BOURKE: I thank the member for his question. As minister, I have no plans to cancel any courses.
Alexander Maconochie Centre—drugs
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Corrections. Minister, on 27 October 2010, Mr Hanson introduced the Corrections Management (Mandatory Urine Testing) Amendment Bill. This bill set up a system of monthly randomised drug tests at the jail. In your answer to question on notice 2101, signed on 16 April this year, you state that a system of monthly randomised drug tests has been introduced at the jail. Minister, when Mr Hanson introduced the bill, your predecessor, Mr Corbell, stated that the policy was unnecessary. Does your introduction of the system indicate that you disagree with Mr Corbell?
DR BOURKE: Not at all. I thank the member for his question. The Canberra Liberals' bill proposed that a mandated five per cent of detainees be subjected to random urinalysis each month. Importantly, these amendments failed to recognise that there were existing random testing provisions in the act, which are now being used. The proposed amendments would have been in conflict with those existing provisions. Furthermore, the requirement of that particular piece of legislation would have tied corrective staff up in bureaucratic red tape instead of allowing them to take an intelligence-based approach to random testing.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr Smyth.