Page 2864 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We raised our amendments over a week ago with the Chief Minister. He did say yesterday that he did not receive our amendments. We sent them to his office over a week ago and sought input. We did not receive any input or feedback on them. Even before that time, we had made it quite clear to the Chief Minister’s office that we would be putting forward amendments and we were happy to engage with them on those; in fact, we encouraged it. Again, we did not receive any feedback or input from the Chief Minister’s office. So I think it was extremely disingenuous and disappointing to hear the commentary from the Chief Minister this morning, given that he has refused to engage in any aspect of this.
Again, I thought we had in-principle agreement on the bill, that we were moving forward on it and that all parties agreed to that. It is disappointing that it has gone down the road that it has.
I think I have made the points I need to make. We believe that some of the points put forward by the human rights commissioner show that the amendments we have put forward address some of those significant human rights and civil liberties concerns with the bill. Mr Hanson, to his credit, has put forward amendments, particularly around people having access to the oral fluid, which provides them with the ability to have their own test done. Also, if there is that issue of false positives, that can be addressed. That is something which improves even on the legislation which has been put forward in Victoria.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.07): On the issue of human rights, looking at the advice provided by the human rights commissioner—and I will quote from it:
I have reservations regarding the human rights compatibility of random roadside drug … testing generally.
What she is making quite clear is that this is a philosophical objection to random roadside drug testing. That is fine; that is her opinion. I do not have a philosophical objection to random roadside drug testing. I think that her advice is predicated on that substantive objection. She has come at it from a point of view where random roadside drug testing may be an invasion of privacy. I believe the bill that has been amended by the Greens’ amendments and by my own, and indeed in the original way it was written, substantially addresses as many of those concerns as can be addressed.
The point is that random breath testing, as the human rights commissioner has noted, is, indeed, and probably was when it was introduced, considered a breach of human rights by some people. Random drug testing will continue to be considered a breach of human rights by some people—probably the human rights commissioner, probably Mr Stanhope. But at some stage a decision has to be made, a judgement has to be made, about balancing the priorities between the human rights of an individual to take drugs, or to be tested for taking drugs, and the human rights of road users and their safety.
That is a judgement that this Assembly has to make. It has to make sure that the legislation that is put forward takes every reasonable step to make sure that human rights are not unnecessarily impinged. But at some stage, that judgement has had to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video