Page 2856 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Stanhope interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Stanhope! You are now warned for intervening after I tried to gain order.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.39), by leave: I move amendments Nos 5 to 7 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3022].
Amendment 5 changes the prescribed concentration to a presence test as the part of the act. This permits an officer to detain a person for the purposes of administering an oral fluid analysis. It removes reference to illicit drugs and replaces it with the broader “prescribed drug”. This allows for future inclusion of legal prescription drugs. It is an issue which I discussed earlier.
Amendment 6 removes the definition again of a prescribed concentration. It is made redundant when we move to a presence test. Amendment 7 removes the word “illicit” from the definition of “prescribing illicit drug” for the reasons that I outlined for amendment 5.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (10.40): Mr Speaker, the Canberra Liberals, the opposition, will be supporting these amendments for the reasons explained by Ms Bresnan. They relate again to the definition of “concentration”, which is being removed, and the definition of whether a drug is illicit or not. It is simply now a matter of whether the drug is prescribed. This does allow for prescription drugs to be introduced into this legislation either by amendment or through regulation by the minister at a later date.
Amendments agreed to.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (10.41), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 3028].
Mr Speaker, amendment 1 relates to the addition of another drug that can be tested under this legislation, that being ecstasy. I will not try and pronounce the technical name. I think we would be here all day. MDMA is the acronym. The addition of ecstasy is based on the fact that this is consistent with legislation that has been introduced elsewhere, although in Victoria it was not initially part of the legislation. It has been incorporated, as has been done in other jurisdictions. I note that this is consistent with the government’s arguments that ecstasy should be included as well as CPO on advice I have received from the AFPA.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video