Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3001 ..

MS HORODNY (8.52): Mr Speaker, these Bills are about increasing the penalties for drink-driving offences to provide a greater deterrent in the community to drink-driving and irresponsible driving. The Greens fully support these objectives. There is no doubt that drink-driving is a major contributor to road accidents in the ACT, as elsewhere. Alcohol intoxication is implicated in about one-third of all road deaths in Australia. I think there is a responsibility on this Assembly to send a clear message that drink-driving is not acceptable. Not only is drink-driving harmful for the person who drinks; the fact that drink-drivers are on public roads alongside other drivers means that innocent drivers going about their own business are under threat from potential injury and death from the reckless behaviour of drunk drivers.

It should be remembered that driving is not a right but a privilege. Because there are significant public safety issues involved in the transport system, people cannot just hop in a car and go driving. First, they must obtain a licence by proving that they can drive competently without endangering their own lives and the lives of others. Then, they must obey road rules, under threat of being penalised by the police and ultimately the courts. People who drive under the influence of alcohol must, quite rightly, be sanctioned through the legal system for not taking seriously their responsibility to the whole community to drive safely. The Greens will therefore be supporting this Bill in principle, as I understand all members will be; but we have particular concerns about some of its clauses. Mr Moore has put up a range of amendments which we will generally be supporting.

The Motor Traffic Act already contains a range of rules and penalties regarding drink-driving and the Government is now proposing to strengthen these rules. The question that this Assembly must address is how far it should go in penalising drink-drivers. I think we all have slightly different views on this. If I had my way I would drop the allowable blood alcohol content down to .02 so that it would be very clear to the community that if you want to drink any alcohol you should not be driving. Research has shown that even quite small amounts of alcohol increase the risk of accidents. For drivers with a blood alcohol content of between .02 and .05 the risk of involvement in a serious crash is more than twice that of sober drivers.

It is clear that, despite intense effort to combat drink-driving over a number of years, improvement in reducing road deaths from drink-driving has stalled since 1992. The Federal Office of Road Safety has indicated that there are still some hard-core groups of motorists who have not responded to the community campaign to reduce drink-driving. These include young male motorists, blue collar or unemployed male motorists and middle-aged male motorists who appear to be alcohol dependent. While legal penalties have some deterrent value, these findings indicate that there still needs to be a broader range of educational and community awareness raising strategies and alcohol rehabilitation programs that keep sending the message that drinking and driving are not compatible. Mr Moore has circulated a number of amendments and I will comment on those when we get to them.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .