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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2008 ..

Court Security Bill 2000

Debate resumed from 15 June 2001.

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to make a very brief statement.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: Under this legislation security officers at the court are being employed by the Department of Justice and Community Safety. This is a bit confusing, given that the officers must defer to the court's judgment on several matters. Also, as this will be effectively an outsourced service, there is a grey area as to whether or not the security officers' actions will be subject to the review of the AAT, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, FOI and the Ombudsman.

This and the lack of detail on terms to be addressed in the contract are serious gaps in this legislation in terms of accountability. The department could ensure that those review mechanisms were written into the contract with the security officers, and I sincerely hope they do, but there is nothing in the legislation to say clearly what scrutiny the Assembly wants. I want to put on the record my concerns about what happened in the debate. It may well need to be revisited.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to speak very briefly.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I endorse the comments Ms Tucker has made. The Labor Party sought a number of amendments to the bill to ameliorate what we saw as unfortunate aspect of it. We accept the bill, but I endorse the comments Ms Tucker has made about some of the implications.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Drugs of Dependence Amendment Bill 2001

Debate resumed from 3 May 2001, on motion by Mr Moore:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WOOD (11.11): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill, with amendment Mr Moore foreshadowed late last week. The bill aims to provide for the regulation of the handling, storage and destruction of cannabis that has been seized by police. The bill claims to introduce more flexible procedures and protocols for use by the government analyst. Primarily, it aims to reduce the volume of cannabis held by the analyst, for reasons of safety and to ensure that storage facilities are not overburdened. These seem to be sensible provisions.

The scrutiny of bills committee made a comment that the 24-hour period allowed for the destruction of cannabis was not enough. This has been a matter of some interest to members who have picked up the recommendations of the committee. Ms Tucker

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