Page 2869 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We heard him on the radio today talking about the human rights aspects and acknowledging that in fact his legislation would not meet the approval of the human rights commissioner; that in fact there is a fundamental disagreement here between the human rights commissioner’s views and the policy intent. We believe that our roads should be made safer. We believe that good legislation can do that and that this legislation achieves that. We will, from time to time, have differences of opinion. Mr Stanhope would like to scuttle it. And we saw how uncomfortable he was this morning on radio when he was asked this question about his own legislation and how he was backing away from his position.
Again, we have him arguing that the Human Rights Act fundamentally should mean that we do not have this type of legislation. We fundamentally disagree. We believe in the human rights of all Canberrans who use our roads, who expect that we will do all we can to keep our roads safe, through laws on speeding, laws against drink driving, laws against driving under the influence of drugs—all of these things contribute to making our roads safe—and we do not accept what is now being put by the Chief Minister, effectively, and that is that as a result of human rights principles we should not have roadside drug testing. That is what this is about. He has tried to scuttle it because he does not believe in it.
He should be honest and say it. He should be honest and say he actually does not believe in this type of legislation. No matter what Mr Hanson had put up, Jon Stanhope would have found a problem with it. If he was serious about engagement, he would have asked the Chief Police Officer months ago to look at this. But he did not bother. He waited until the last minute, gave what can only be considered incomplete information to the Chief Police Officer, when Mr Hanson has been engaging with the Australian Federal Police Association right throughout the process to get this legislation through. He has also been engaging with other parliamentary colleagues to get this legislation improved.
What we hear from the Chief Minister time and again is that he fundamentally does not want to see this type of legislation go through. We disagree. But Jon Stanhope should be called for what he is on this, and that is that he does not agree with the principle, he does not philosophically agree with this legislation, and if it was up to him he would use the Human Rights Act as an excuse not to have laws which protect all Canberrans from the dangers associated with people under the influence of drugs driving on our roads.
This is a good piece of legislation, and the hysterical shouting and jumping up and down from the Chief Minister will not change the fact that he believes it is redneck legislation, he believes it is legislation that impinges on people’s human rights, and he is not committed. He is not committed to any type of legislation that will actually allow us to implement random roadside drug testing to protect all Canberrans.
I do commend Mr Hanson for his efforts on this, and it is in stark contrast to the Labor Party in this place. ACT Labor are fundamentally opposed to this and, I think, have been shown up to philosophically be opposed to this and are using every excuse in the book. They have had six months, they have had five years, and they have done nothing. Mr Hanson has acted, and this will be a very important step forward when this legislation is passed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video