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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3082 ..

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 9  	Noes, 8

Mr Berry  	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell  	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Hird
Mr Moore  	Mr Humphries
Mr Osborne  	Mr Kaine
Mr Quinlan  	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Stanhope  	Mr Smyth
Ms Tucker  	Mr Stefaniak
Mr Wood  

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 29 June 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.29): This bill is based on a model forensic procedures bill. The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, which coordinates these matters, has advised my office that New South Wales and Victoria have implemented legislation based on the model, that the Commonwealth, the ACT and South Australia are about to do so, and that other states are well advanced in their drafting of complementary legislation.

New South Wales has introduced a bill for an act, as has the ACT, but Victoria has amended its existing Crimes Act. This approach by Victoria has necessitated not strictly following the model code, although the principles have been adhered to with additional safeguards; for example, intimate samples may only be taken by a medical practitioner or nurse of the same sex as the person giving the sample.

Before I go into some of the details in relation to the issues in this bill I should say, to ensure that the record is quite clear, that the ALP support this bill in principle. We do believe that the DNA technology which has been developed and which is now available to the police and useable is an invaluable tool in relation to the detection of criminal

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