Page 3115 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The fact that he said that, I am hoping, has now put Jon Stanhope off this.
Mr Seselja: I think Jon got rolled in cabinet on that one.
MR HANSON: You think he got rolled? I just thought that—
Mr Seselja: I think he may have been rolled.
MR HANSON: It is not that necessarily it is a bad idea; it is simply that there is no evidence to support it. I think the problem is that, in terms of drink driving, Jon Stanhope just simply came out with a bunch of rambling thoughts, and name and shame was one of them. I think that what was needed was a more constructive approach to drink driving. I think we are starting to see that. We will go through it in detail. But again, in nine years, how many accidents could have been prevented if we had had a more effective regime?
I turn now to the issue of random drug testing, which is obviously a very pertinent issue, given the fantastic result yesterday where this Assembly passed the ACT’s random—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Excuse me, Mr Hanson, the standing orders—
Mr Seselja: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, before you continue, can I seek your clarification on that? My understanding of that standing order in terms of reflecting on votes is that someone has to adversely reflect on the vote and claim that somehow the Assembly got it wrong. I do not think that Mr Hanson, in any way, is doing that. So I just seek your clarification, perhaps with the Clerk’s advice on that as well.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: No, I do not need the Clerk’s advice. But thank you, Mr Seselja, for that request. I was not intending to ask Mr Hanson not to say something. I was just about to bring that piece of the standing orders to his attention in case something was going to come forward later in his speech which may cause us to have some discomfort. That is all.
MR HANSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I assure you that there is nothing that I will say that would in any way reflect badly on the decision that was made by the Assembly in relation to random drug testing on our roadsides. I think it is a fantastic result. It is a fantastic result for the community. It will keep our roads safer and I think that the objections that have been raised in the community are by people who probably are philosophically opposed to random drug testing. And that is an issue that we will not be able to get around.
I think it is a good measure. I would hope that the government thinks it is a good measure and I would strongly urge the government to now move forward with introducing random roadside drug testing. I would strongly urge them to support it in every way that they can. There is no question that random breath testing has reduced the number of people that go out and drink drive. It will never be reduced to everybody. It is not the only measure. Obviously effective education is an important part of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video