Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3107 ..
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.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.08 am): I move:
No 31-
Dictionary, page 75, line 33, definition of destroy , omit the definition.
Mr Speaker, this amendment removes the definition of "destroy" from the dictionary to the bill. The word "destroy" is currently defined as follows:
... a person destroys forensic material taken from someone else by a forensic procedure, the results of the analysis of the material, or other information obtained from it, if the person destroys any means of identifying the forensic material or information with the person from whom it was taken or to whom it relates.
The part of the definition that causes me some concern is that the requirement to destroy relates only to the person destroying any means of identifying the forensic material. It has not been explained and I cannot understand why the requirement should not be to destroy the material. The amendment I have proposed is that the word "destroy" in terms of its implications for this legislation be not just that the means of identifying the sample be destroyed but the sample itself be destroyed.
I do not think it is appropriate just to destroy the means of identifying a sample and to have samples lying around. Given the speed with which technology is changing, it seems reasonable to me and to the Labor Party that forensic samples not be just stockpiled or left for no reason.
MS TUCKER
(12.10 am): We will be supporting this amendment, too. I think that it is important to recognise that we are creating a database and a library with extensive and uncertain ramifications. I noticed that when Mr Humphries was replying to the in-principle stage he was concerned that I was somehow suggesting that the police force in the ACT was corrupt or whatever. I do not know whether he meant to misrepresent me or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .