Page 2873 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.33): This amendment, as Mr Hanson already outlined, reinserts sections in regard to the treatment of blood samples for evidentiary purposes under the act. At the request of the AFPA, we understand that reinserting these provisions is necessary for the treatment of evidence under the act and was a result of a consultation Mr Hanson had with the police association.
Clause 17 negatived.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.34), by leave: I move amendments Nos 16 to 34 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3024].
These amendments remove, again, a section referring to assessment of drug impairment tests protecting an officer from liability arising from taking someone into custody. Amendment 17 removes a section referring to assessment of drug impairment tests, and amendment 18 restricts the use of blood or oral samples to the act or for research purposes only. Amendments 19 to 22 change “the offence of driving whilst impaired by drug or fluid concentration exceeded” to “driving with … drug in oral fluid and blood”.
Amendments 23 to 28 again refer to some of the subsequent sections, and amendment 29 inserts the word “prescribed” before “drug”, for clarity. Amendment 30 puts a restriction on search powers so that police may not form suspicion on the basis of drug testing or drug screening testing only. That is one of the issues I addressed earlier, which were in relation to concerns raised by civil liberties groups. It was, I have to say, an amendment we had already put forward, through our analysis of the bill. The other amendments again refer to the drug impairment tests and the presence tests, which are the issues I have raised earlier through my speech.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.36): Mr Assistant Speaker, we will be supporting these amendments. The bulk of them actually deal with the change in testing for a concentration, which now is just simply testing for a prescribed drug in the body. The other relates to definitions throughout the bill.
There are two substantive changes, and I will address those. Amendment 18 prevents now a sample that is taken under this act being used for other purposes. Essentially, that prevents someone having a sample taken and then it being used under another criminal code for a subsequent prosecution. We think that that is reasonable. It is actually in the provisions included in the government’s draft exposure bill, and we have agreed to support that amendment.
The other substantive amendment is related to the search of vehicles. The Canberra Liberals did not actually see the need for this amendment, but we have had extensive discussion with the Greens on this—the point being that this is a road safety bill. We acknowledge that, and we believe that we have got to make sure that the police officers on the ground have got the powers that they need and the freedom to act to form a basis of suspicion to search a vehicle. I am comfortable, with the amendment as it is structured and phrased, that it still provides police with the powers that they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video