Page 708 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I imagine that the samples can be taken rather quickly. If somebody presents at a hospital five hours after an accident, one hour required on site is more than ample to allow that sample to be properly and professionally collected. Therefore, it would seem prudent that the act should also require that, if a person presents for sample collection between four and six hours, they can be catered for. If that is not the case, then I would like the minister to clarify that in his closing speech. That is probably one of the clarifications that we might see. The minister might also confirm whether this might pose a problem or whether there is scope to tighten this up and, if necessary, amend the bill at a later date if he thinks that this is a problem.
Amended section 15A (1) changes the requirement from an approved analyst being able to analyse a sample to requiring the analyst to arrange for the blood to be analysed at an approved laboratory. Again, this is fine as it adds an extra layer of protection to the sample collection and analysis process. But again it poses the question of resourcing and the provision of dedicated facilities to carry out this testing. I have not been able to quite find out whether this is simply another check put in place and whether it is going to be another capability which is going to cost. I would like the minister to perhaps clarify that. He is shaking his head. If that is the case, fine. But we will earmark that as something to keep an eye on.
Given the state of the territory’s finances, I would like the minister to confirm whether these changes are revenue neutral. I would have thought that these are simply changes in procedures that change the habit of how these tests are either taken or couriered to the appropriate site. If that is the case, I cannot see how that would cost. The minister is shaking his head. Maybe he could, for the record, confirm that when he speaks in response.
Whereas before, under the act, a police officer could request an approved analyst to analyse a sample taken from persons for drugs other than alcohol, now the requirement under this amendment bill is that the police officer can ask the analyst to arrange for the sample to be analysed by an approved laboratory. The question is whether this will stretch police resources, which are of course, as we often argue in this place, fairly stretched as it is. Will these changes in fact lead to more pressures on an already overstretched police force, leading to more paperwork, more levels of official activity, or is it a matter of those police already committed to an accident investigation simply changing their habits, hopefully in a more efficient way, to deal with analysts and hospital staff in a different process?
If that is the case, then it is definitely cost neutral and is definitely energy neutral; that is, the police simply do what they would have to do anyway. If a policeman has investigated an accident and followed a patient to the hospital, he would normally do that anyway—consult hospital staff. If all the policeman is now doing is changing the way in which he talks to people, then it is not going to be a burden at all. I am sure the minister can confirm that.
The opposition will be supporting this bill. We may revisit a couple of those aspects that I have talked about earlier. The minister is indicating that this is going to be revenue neutral. He is indicating that it is not going to add any additional burdens on police procedures. That is good. Let us keep an eye on this. If for some reason these things
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .