Page 483 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
driving whilst affected by drugs. Police tell me that they think many road rage incidents are based on some young people being drug affected, because it speeds them up. The Canberra Times reports last Saturday show that, from the Coroner’s findings, quite a proportion of the fatalities in the ACT last year—unfortunately one of the worst years ever in that regard—could also be attributed to the use of drugs. At least 47 per cent of the 37 fatalities referred to by the Canberra Times involved alcohol and drugs, but the authorities have not finally determined that percentage. They believe that percentage will go higher. The early findings are 47 per cent. That is a major concern.
Part 2 of the current legislation—the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977—spells out comprehensively the methods of examination of a person for alcohol or drugs. Section 24 of the existing road transport act states that, if a person drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that they are incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle, they commit an offence. Not only does this cover illegal drugs but it also covers other substances where they seriously impact on a person’s ability to drive a vehicle—alcohol, for example, which is not an illicit substance.
Other examples of substances that could impair a driver’s ability are Valium, antihistamines, pain-killers and cold and flu tablets. It is already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, illegal or not, where they seriously impair the driver. That is spelt out in the current act. I fully understand the concern of the government and the Greens that the testing of drugs, including other illegal substances people may have in their systems, is a problem. It is a challenge but it is not insurmountable. When you compare the risk of managing that issue with the greater concern of catching people driving with substantial drugs in their systems, it should not present as an obstacle.
Referring back to John Hargreaves’s interjections earlier in the debate, he raised a point in the tabling phase of this debate about the use of Sudafed. Of course Sudafed is a problem. It is illegal to drive under the influence of Sudafed where this impairs a driver’s ability to control a vehicle. As minister for police, Mr Hargreaves ought to know that that is the concern. He ought to know that there are legal and illegal drugs which can be defined under the act.
Section 15A (3) of the current act says that, if a police officer has cause to suspect that a person has a drug other than alcohol in their system, they can request an analysis of the person’s blood to determine the concentration of such a drug. Again, I stress that we are not introducing the ability of a police officer to test for drugs; the law already exists for that. Therefore an argument against supporting the bill on the basis that there are concerns about the testing of the drugs themselves is questioning the regime of drug testing which already exists in the ACT under current legislation.
I think we should just dwell on that. That would be illogical. I do not know why the government has raised that concern. Perhaps I am overdoing it; perhaps they have not raised it as a major obstacle, but they have raised that concern, and the Greens certainly have as well. I do not know why the government has raised that concern. Perhaps I am overdoing it; perhaps they have not raised it as a major obstacle but they have raised that concern. The Greens have certainly raised that concern as well. If we have a problem with our police testing for drugs now, why would it be any different in random drug testing?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .