Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2010) . . Page.. 2855 ..
We will be supporting both the amendments put forward, the second one being about the offence being essentially impaired. That is difficult to assess. I accept that. The level of impairment is one that is difficult to assess. Again, what this amendment does is simply make the presence the offence. So we will be supporting these amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.36), by leave: I move amendments Nos 3 and 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3022].
Amendments 3 and 4 refer to the prescribed level in relation to presence and non-presence tests. They also relate to the analysis of these tests. Speaking to amendment 3, this specifies the requirements for roadside testing screen advices to change prescribed concentrations to a simpler presence test, as I have already discussed. It reflects the current state of testing technology, provides for simpler legislation and, I think, removes ambiguities which were in the original bill.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (10.38): The Liberals will be supporting these amendments. As outlined by Ms Bresnan, this really refers to the discussion earlier around the removal of the concentration in the way that the bill was framed. We have the amendment that now refers simply to the presence of a quantity of a prescribed drug. We will be supporting the amendment.
Mr Stanhope: A big backflip, mate.
MR SPEAKER: The question is that Ms Bresnan’s—
Mr Hanson: I am happy to engage on it; very happy to.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stanhope: Adopting the government’s proposal; a big backflip.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, do you wish to seek the call?
Mr Stanhope: After arguing viciously against it, you now agree.
Mr Hanson: You should have engaged.
Mr Seselja: You don’t support the legislation at all, do you, Jon?
Mrs Dunne: You are just a sore loser, Jon.
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! The next person who intervenes—