Page 1714 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are still awaiting one significant submission that, it has been indicated to us, is under preparation but has not yet been concluded. That is a submission from ACT Policing on the issues pertinent to a roadside drug testing regime.
That is the position the government finds itself in at the moment in relation to this proposal. We have foreshadowed an alternative process because we do have some genuine concerns with some of the technical aspects of Mr Hanson’s approach and proposal. We have issued a discussion paper. We have invited submissions. We have received submissions. ACT police have indicated to us that they would prefer some additional time in which to prepare their submission. In the context of that advice from me today, I am not quite sure of the wisdom of a process that proceeds in the absence of formal advice from those that would be charged with implementing the scheme and those that would be responsible for the legislation, who have indicated they wish to be involved but have not yet been able to conclude their consideration.
I understand that the bill is being presented; we are going to debate it. Ms Bresnan advises that the position the Greens have arrived at is that they are prepared, because of the significance and importance of the issue, to proceed to the in-principle stage today and that there would be agreement then to adjourn the detail stage. The government would welcome that if the Assembly were minded to adjourn at the in-principle stage to give the Assembly an opportunity to consider some amendments.
I am not quite sure how the process would work if this bill is agreed to in principle today, but I would have hoped that there was some capacity then, through the detail stage, for issues that may, for instance, be raised by ACT Policing and be incorporated in a government response, to be debated cognately, say, in June, when we next return. We could conclude the debate on Mr Hanson’s bill, which the government now is happy to do, but would welcome an opportunity to be able to present amendments at that stage, amendments which I imagine will flow from the outcomes of the consultation which the government is currently undertaking.
I should say—and I say this genuinely in acknowledgement of an undertaking that I gave last time, an expectation that I had—that I did indicate an expectation that TAMS would have concluded the drafting of a bill by this stage. They have not. I acknowledge that an undertaking or an expectation that I aired when last this matter was raised has not been met. I accept responsibility for that, but the department has had some capacity constraint and has not been able to conclude drafting. I acknowledge that. I did give an undertaking that I would have draft legislation that members could consider by today, and I do not. I accept that and ask for the Assembly’s understanding.
I indicate that the government are prepared to support this matter moving through in principle. We will not support it in principle, but I accept that it will be agreed to in principle and I would like an opportunity to then have the matter adjourned so that the Assembly has the benefit of amendments that the government would propose to bring to the Assembly for consideration.
Having outlined the government’s position, I will just say briefly now that the core of the concerns that the government has with this bill is our belief that, for random
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video