Page 1685 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But on reflection, examining the detail of the legislation, we will not be supporting the amendment when it is tabled by the Greens because we do want to make sure that the police have the powers that they already have with regard to search and with regard to removing items from individuals taken into custody.
An amendment has been provided by the government, I believe, that relates to allowing laboratories outside the ACT to process drug testing samples.
I would like to make a point here that this is not an unusual thing that we do here. We deal with complex legislation that is being passed by this Assembly. When those that are responsible for implementing that legislation in detail, be it police or other departments, look at that in detail and do discover anomalies with legislation and do discover ways that it can be improved, it is quite regular that in this place we will deal with that legislation, as we are doing here today. It is very important that it describes technical amendments as being obviously important to make sure that the legislation works effectively and efficiently and to make sure that those people are taken to court, as they may be in this case, so that the courts can do their job and administer justice to those people.
But it is worth reflecting on, as we move forward with this legislation today, the mock outrage and the indignation that we saw from Mr Stanhope and from the Attorney-General last year in relation to the random roadside drug testing legislation, which essentially had similar technical amendments that needed to be addressed. They were important. They were important to make sure that legislation was effective and would work on the ground, just as the legislation we are dealing with today and the technical amendments we are dealing with today are important to make sure that this legislation is effective and can be used by those people responsible and charged by us with the responsibility of implementing that legislation.
So when Mr Stanhope and Mr Corbell last year, in response to the random roadside drug testing legislation that essentially went through this process that we find ourselves in today, went to the media and put out press releases that described the legislation as fatally flawed and so on, they basically attacked the Liberal opposition and the Greens who had passed that legislation. It is worth noting what an exercise in political point-scoring that that was. I think that some of the media bought into that debate, responded to it and listened to what Mr Stanhope and Mr Corbell had to say. I think it is worth reflecting, as we pass this legislation today and as we pass numerous other bills which are brought forward to essentially tidy up previous bits of legislation and which are technical in nature, that it does not mean that the intent or that the legislation is fatally flawed.
I do not think that this legislation today, Mr Stanhope’s bill that he is putting forward today and that is cleaning up legislation he has brought in, is fatally flawed. I think this is simply a necessary part of what we do in this place. It would be nice to get it 100 per cent right the first time, but we do have to be realistic, as we are in this place. There will be anomalies, there will be issues that need to be corrected, and that is what we are doing in this place today.
So we will be supporting this legislation. We will do so to make sure that it is effective and provides those people on the ground with the effective tools that they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video