Page 1169 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 9 April 2008

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

State administrations have determined that, because there was no random drug testing, young drivers—and, unfortunately, this shows up in the surveys—were saying: “Well, I’m going to get pinged at an RBT if I drive alcohol affected but I’ll be okay on drugs. There is no deterrence. I run no risk of being caught driving drug affected.” And that is why they have quite responsibly introduced legislation. This government have the same information. They must have made the same logical determinations. If they are into risk analysis, they must have identified these sorts of risks. But, again, they are blindsided by the human rights and harm minimisation agenda.

In Victoria, the rollout of the dual purpose drugs and booze buses in 2006 marked the beginning of increased drug driving enforcement in Victoria. The drugs tested for there are the same drugs we are recommending should be tested for here. So the model that we are introducing here today is based very firmly on the Victorian model. It is the same model that has inspired the legislation in the other three states. So we are not introducing anything here today which has flaws in it. We are introducing a sound model, a model that has been well tested in Victoria and that is well inspired in terms of the take-up in other states.

With respect to ACT data, studies conducted by the University of Canberra in the last few months also indicate that there is overwhelming evidence that many ACT drivers, in fact seven per cent, are driving while under the influence of cannabis, methamphetamines, and ecstasy. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. (Time expired.)

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.

Protection of Public Participation Bill 2008

Dr Foskey, pursuant to notice, presented the bill.

Title read by Clerk.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.00): I move:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

I am very pleased to introduce the Protection of Public Participation Bill 2008. I refer to this bill as an example of anti-SLAPP legislation and I will be tabling an explanatory statement at the next sitting. “SLAPP” is shorthand for “strategic law suits against public participation”. These law suits are on the rise in Australia and are intended to silence and intimidate activists, activist organisations, investigative journalists, concerned citizens or any outspoken individual or group on matters of public interest.

As residents will remember, in 2005 I introduced my Court Procedures (Protection of Public Participation) Amendment Bill. The bill was generally welcomed by the government at the time; it offered support for its objectives, but without agreeing to the actual wording or the form of the bill. When my bill was sent off to the legal

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