Page 5723 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the government amendments [see schedule 1 at page 5751].
As I indicated, these are minor technical amendments to the bill. I believe these amendments, most particularly, were made in response to comments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety in its scrutiny report.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4.46): As foreshadowed in my earlier speech to the Assembly, we support the government’s technical amendments to ensure that people may challenge the analysis of their drug test sample. We believe it is an important amendment to bring alcohol and drug analysis provisions into line. Furthermore, these amendments protect the fundamental right of people to mount a defence in a court of law.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.46): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. It provides clarity to evidentiary provisions, as requested by the scrutiny of bills committee. The amendment clarifies that evidence given in a court relating to a drug charge is based upon a National Association of Testing Authorities accredited laboratory analysis. I note that the ACT Greens are concerned that the government response to the scrutiny of bills report was only received yesterday. This provides very limited time for the crossbench and opposition to evaluate the government’s response to scrutiny concerns. However, based upon the briefings we have received, we will be passing the government amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 110, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 111.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4.47): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 5754].
As I addressed in my earlier speech, I have now moved an amendment to the bill that provides for people convicted of a drug impairment offence to undertake a drug awareness course before being able to apply for a restricted or probationary licence. We want to ensure that not only drink drivers but also drug drivers are required to undertake an awareness course as part of the penalty for the offence. As highlighted earlier, a disparity between the offences of drug and drink driving currently exists. Our amendment ensures that this disparity is fixed.
I foreshadow that we will support the amendment that is due to be moved by Ms Bresnan, that makes provision for people convicted of a drug-driving offence and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video