Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3099 ..
MS TUCKER (11.33): The Greens will be supporting the amendments. A perfectly reasonable argument has been put by Mr Stanhope on this issue. Obviously, it has been supported in other jurisdictions as being a reasonable response to the use of this new technology. I have to say that the response from Mr Stefaniak confirms for me the need for such amendments. I am equally stunned by that response.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Stanhope's ) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Ayes, 7 Noes, 8 Mr Berry Ms Carnell Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Kaine Mr Humphries Mr Quinlan Mr Moore Mr Stanhope Mr Osborne Ms Tucker Mr Rugendyke Mr Wood Mr Smyth Mr Stefaniak
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 22, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 23.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.37): I move:
No 3-
Page 11, line 16, paragraph (1) (b), omit "if the forensic procedure is a procedure other than the taking of a handprint, fingerprint or toeprint-".
Mr Speaker, this amendment is similar to amendments 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 and 16.
Mr Moore: Why don't you move them all together?
MR STANHOPE: I think the notes take care of that. This amendment was designed to guarantee absolutely that the legislation applies only to those suspects or offenders who are serious offenders. This was done in terms of our concern to ensure that the legislation did meet that requirement, which we understand to be the intent of the legislation, an intent that the Labor Party supports. We believe on the basis of our discussions and negotiations with the drafter that my amendments achieve that purpose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .