Page 2850 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
adjourn it. This is a process that has been going on for over five years in the ACT. Whilst every other jurisdiction in Australia has successfully implemented a regime of roadside random drug testing, the ACT has failed to do so. At every step the Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, has opposed its introduction. He has come up with excuses and reasons for not doing so, initially based on his philosophical opposition to the bill, describing it as red-neck. At every step he has sought to interfere with the political process, to distract, to oppose, simply because he does not want this legislation introduced.
We are at a point now where we are going to be debating the legislation in detail and we will pass this legislation today. It has not been assisted by the government. I make it very clear that I have sought to do this in a cooperative sense. I think that the Greens would support the fact that I have done so. I have willingly accepted, discussed and negotiated a number of amendments with them and we have come to a successful resolution.
I have asked the Chief Minister to follow the same process. He has refused to do so. I asked him in December, when I tabled the bill. I then wrote to him in February. At every step of the way I have kept the door open for that negotiation or consultation. I would have welcomed his amendments. He has chosen to go down another route—that is, to play this out politically by putting political point scoring ahead of road safety. As we have seen in the last 24 or 48 hours, he has chosen to put his own point scoring ahead of the independence of the office of the Chief Police Officer. The point is that when my legislation was tabled his government should have sought advice from its departments. It should then have come forward with that advice and suggested amendments to me.
It is quite extraordinary that the government, and particularly Mr Stanhope, are criticising me for not having sat down and had discussions with their departments on the formation of Liberal policy. If that is the new way that he expects policy and legislation to be developed within the ACT—that is, that each department, including the Chief Police Officer, now work equally for the opposition and for the Greens as they do for the government—then he needs to make that very clear. We would certainly welcome that. We would welcome equal access to the Chief Police Officer; we would welcome equal access to his departmental heads.
As the Chief Police Officer knows, and as every other departmental head knows—and as Mr Stanhope knows—that is not the way a parliamentary democracy works. Mr Stanhope knows that. When he said last week that I should have engaged and consulted with the Chief Police Officer he knew that that was disingenuous. When, indeed, I did try and do that, following Mr Stanhope’s suggestion, the Chief Police Officer wrote back and said, “I am now consulting with my minister on my ability to do so.” Quite rightly, that process is not applicable.
However, I have had detailed negotiations with the Australian Federal Police Association. I will read the comments that they have made. They obviously represent the AFPA in the territory:
The Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA) welcomes the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) (Random Drug Testing) Amendment Bill 2009 introduced
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video