Page 1693 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The point was that Mr Stanhope simply could not bring forward what he promised to do. He kept saying he was bringing forward a package, bringing forward draft legislation, saying it was going to be different, saying it was going to be better, and on a number of occasions he failed to bring it forward and then when he did bring it forward it was shown to be almost the same legislation, with very little improvement—I would contend none at all—and that was recognised by the Greens.
So I just think it worth saying and making a point for the departmental officers that I acknowledge you have done hard work, and I think today Ms Bresnan and I are acknowledging that in passing this legislation. The random roadside drug testing and the amendments to the random breath testing legislation have been complex. There has been an enormous body of work and I really do appreciate the work that has been done by both the department and ACT Policing with regard to these issues.
It is disingenuous and inaccurate for Mr Stanhope to try and present that as work that has been created—unnecessary work that has been created—by the Canberra Liberals, when if he had followed through with the legislation that had been tabled that he rejected, that he attacked and then tried to copy, he could have saved a lot of people, including this place, a lot of work.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (12.10): The Greens will be supporting these amendments as I have already indicated in my in-principle speech. This is obviously about allowing testing to take place and for random roadside drug testing to commence in the ACT, and for that reason we do support these amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 22A and 22B agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (12.11): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1735].
Obviously I have already spoken about this in my in-principle speech and I have heard that neither the government nor the Liberals will be supporting this amendment. I want to point out again that this is actually about bringing this clause into line with what was stated in the explanatory statement and also what was stated in the briefings which I received on this bill and that Mr Hanson has noted he received also, and to note that we agree with what is stated in principle in this particular amendment, but it is actually about making clear that when it is about taking something in the person’s possession it is actually about, as my amendment notes, “the officer believes on reasonable grounds could pose a safety risk during the period of custody”.
This is not about trying to circumvent any process of search for the police. As I have already noted in my in-principle speech, the police do have powers available to them
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video