Page 1122 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Again, will our legislation potentially capture people who are taking legal drugs which result in them being impaired? And should they face the risk of prosecution in those circumstances? These are the sorts of issues that legitimately require further discussion with the community.
The approach adopted by Mr Hargreaves is a sensible one and one which the opposition would welcome if indeed they were serious about the notion of engaging with the community and talking with the community on these issues. For example, we could analyse the question: when Mr Pratt introduces his legislation tomorrow, what consultation will Mr Pratt have engaged in to develop his legislation? How will he have engaged with lawyers, how will he have engaged with the courts, with the police, and with the broader community about these provisions? What steps will he have taken? This is the issue that the government is seeking, to make sure that policy is grounded in evidence and based on feedback and consultation with our community.
Of course the Liberal Party will go on about consultation when it suits them but when they need to apply the same test to themselves they refuse to do so. When they are asked to apply the same test on consultation as they expect of government legislation they refuse to do it themselves. And that is the real issue here—their reluctance to go out and engage with the community in a consultative process prior to introducing legislation.
This government overwhelmingly engages in a consultative and deliberative process before bringing legislation into this place, particularly on matters as significant as this. But of course it would appear that in this case the Liberal Party do not believe that consultation is warranted. In this case they are deriding the efforts of Mr Hargreaves to go out and engage with the community on these issues. They oppose doing it. They are saying: “Do not worry about that; do not worry about consultation; just do something.” That is what they are saying.
The issue is quite clear. This is a rapidly emerging but changing field of evidence on the impact of drug use on driving behaviour. The issues are complex. The issues on certain prescription drugs such as valium are important considerations. And I would be interested to hear whether Mr Pratt is going to send pensioners to the court because they are using valium and are caught driving with valium in their system. Of course these are issues of very genuine concern today.
What about those people who need to use other drugs that have benzodiazepine in them? I refer to legal medications prescribed by their doctor, dispensed by a chemist but potentially putting them in the circumstance where they will be captured by roadside drug testing and all of the embarrassment that that will cause for those individuals in the event of them being pulled over by the police in those circumstances.
These issues, in the government’s view, warrant further discussion with the community. There is a need to legislate—there is no doubt on that matter—and the minister has indicated that the territory’s assessment of the experience of other jurisdictions now places us in a position where we can legislate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .