Page 2857 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment 2 to clause 7 relates to the way that a person’s sample is treated by the police. It just makes the way that that sample is treated and the way it is placed in containers and labelled by the police more rigorous.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.42): We support these amendments. With the first, as Mr Hanson has already outlined, including MDMA is standard practice for other states. It also has been raised in issues brought forward by particular groups. I think it is important that that is included. In addition, after cannabis it is the most widely taken drug.
The second amendment makes an alteration to the manner in which an oral fluid sample is taken to a laboratory. It is related to amendment 3, which we will be discussing later. Together they ensure that part of the sample collected for analysis is set aside for the use of a person who was tested. The sample can be made available to that person upon request. This allows for independent testing.
I think this is actually an important issue. It does go towards addressing some of the concerns that were raised by the Human Rights Commission. I think it provides redress for people to be able to analyse that sample. I think it also goes to the issue of false positive tests, which did occur in Victoria. I think this is an important amendment which does provide some mitigation if that occurs. As I said, it provides people who may be tested with the ability to challenge a case if that is what they would want to do.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (10.44): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 7A [see schedule 2 at page 3028].
Mr Speaker, this clause relates to the way that oral swabs are tested. What has been shown in other jurisdictions is that on occasion the swab or the sample that is taken on the roadside with the equipment does not always prove 100 per cent positive. It requires a laboratory test to guarantee that a positive test taken on the side of the road which shows positive is, indeed, positive.
Essentially, it ensures that the testing regime is rigorous. This amendment also allows for a sample to be made available to the person who is tested. The sample is divided into two. One is tested and the other sample is then kept for the person that is tested to gain a sample of that to get independently tested should they wish to appeal their conviction.
It makes it a more rigorous testing regime. This covers and addresses a couple issues, one raised by the Human Rights Commissioner and also by the CTO. It is consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions. It will ensure that successful appeals cannot be made against convictions where now the swab has been tested by laboratory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video