Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3108 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

just did not listen to my argument, but I was making the point there that we have had royal commissions which have found serious examples of corruption in various police forces. Of course, the question has to be: why would the ACT not have any corruption at all?

That was not the point I was making, although it seems to be the claim of the Attorney-General. The point I was making was that this database can go nationally and internationally. That is the issue that I was addressing there and the reason I was pointing to particular inquiries which have found corruption was that it is the reality of police forces around the world. I cited one in the United States as well. I am hoping that Mr Humphries just was not listening and did not understand my point there.

Basically, Mr Stanhope is suggesting here that there should be a stronger definition of "destroy". We remain cautious as to the use and manipulation of comprehensive crime and DNA databases and it is only through destroying a sample rather than describing the sample as destroyed that we can have any certainty that the process in reality has taken permanent effect.

I think that it is interesting that Mr Moore has been sitting here and saying nothing because when I first came into this place I saw him as a leader on civil liberties issues. I am very sorry that he has not even spoken tonight.

Amendment negatived.

Remainder of bill, as a whole, agreed to.

Bill agreed to.


Detail Stage

Clause 1.

Debate resumed.

MR OSBORNE (12.12 am): I have taken advice since we debated this legislation yesterday morning. The advice that I have is that it would appear that the best way to deal with my amendment would be to bring it forward as a substantive piece of legislation rather than try to amend the Electoral Act. So I will not be moving my amendment tonight but I intend to bring it back in the next sitting as a piece of legislation. I do, however, think the principle of conflict of interest is very important and I intend to pursue that matter.


(Minister for Health and Community Care) (12.13 am): Mr Speaker, I cannot quite understand how Mr Osborne could have managed to say what he just said. We are dealing with clause 1, which relates to the name of the bill-the Electoral Amendment Bill 2000. I am not quite sure how what he just said is consistent with standing orders when he is supposed to be debating clause 1, the name of the act.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .