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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 17 March 2010) . . Page.. 1029 ..

The Greens have the audacity to come into this place and say, “We’re adjourning the debate on this road safety legislation because there’s been no community consultation.” They have not even bothered to read the submissions. They are lazy, lazy, lazy. They are coming in here because they do not have a bloody clue about what is going on and, as a result, people are going to continue driving on our roads while affected by drugs. That is what is going to happen as a result of today.

We have support for our legislation from organisations such as the Law Society, as reported in the Canberra Times back in 2008. The ACT Law Society has criticised the government’s legal arguments against introducing random roadside drug testing, saying the decision is endangering lives. I will say that again: endangering lives. Who was it that was defending the fact that the government did not want RDT? The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, defended the government’s refusal to test for drugs on the road, saying that the current technology is faulty. That is ludicrous. That is rubbish. The people who have been standing in the way of this have been the government and the Greens, and they continue to do so. They are putting people’s lives at risk by refusing to do so.

We have the support of the NRMA and the AFPA for this legislation. The consultation has occurred. This is a failure to act on the issue; not a lack of consultation. We are ready to act; we can act. It is not that the community has not been engaged, and I have just outlined the evidence. Go on the TAMS website and have a look, Ms Bresnan; have a look, Mr Rattenbury. Try and discover what is going on with RDT in this community instead of coming to the debate late and just jumping into bed with the government and deciding to consult and engage. That consultation, Madam Assistant Speaker—

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I know that leave has been granted to Mr Hanson to speak. However, I would draw your attention, Madam Assistant Speaker, to House of Representatives Practice with reference to statements by leave. Before I do this, I note that Mr Hanson himself indicated when seeking and receiving the leave of the chamber that he would make a short statement. Madam Assistant Speaker, I draw your attention to House of Representatives Practice, which says:

Members seeking leave to make statements must indicate the subject matter in order that the House can make a judgment as to whether or not to grant leave. When a Member has digressed from the subject for which leave was granted, the Chair has … expressed the opinion that a Member should not take advantage of leave granted to make a statement (in response to another) to raise matters that had no direct relationship to that statement.

I would argue that Mr Hanson is taking advantage of the leave that has been granted to him by the Assembly. He said he would make a short statement. He is now debating the bill which the Assembly has just adjourned. I think he is taking advantage of the leave that has been granted to him, and I would ask you to consider indicating to Mr Hanson that he should not take advantage of that leave and that he should honour the commitment and the indication he gave to this place that he would be making a short statement.

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