Page 5491 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government’s own drug-driving discussion paper cites the results of the Victorian trial which showed that “more than twice the number of drivers tested positive for one or more of three illicit drugs than to levels of alcohol over the prescribed legal limit”. Twice as many, Mr Speaker.
The discussion paper also outlines evidence showing that driving under the influence of cannabis has the equivalent impact on driver performance of a blood alcohol content of 0.15. That is three times the legal limit. For the government, and the Chief Minister in particular, to somehow suggest that drug driving is not a problem, or less of a problem in the ACT, as he did in his press release, is not only disingenuous but highly offensive, especially for those families, such as Alison Ryan’s, who have lost a loved one due to drug driving.
We know beyond doubt that there are three issues relevant to this debate that are based on sound and conclusive evidence. There is an illicit drug use issue where the ACT records a worse result than the national average. We know that Canberra drivers are driving under the influence of drugs, and we know that drugs impair judgement and the ability to operate a vehicle safely, just as alcohol does.
For the government to continue denying the evidence, to essentially deny the science and pretend that drug driving is not an issue here in the ACT, is highly offensive, it is disgusting and it is nothing more than a head-in-the-sand approach. It is an opposition for opposition’s sake approach that the government often accuses the crossbench of following.
It is worth looking at this government’s record on RDT in this place, and revisit some of the ludicrous arguments used by them against introducing random drug testing. The Chief Minister, when this was introduced before, labelled this legislation—and I have it here in the Hansard—as “the redneck bill”. That was Jon Stanhope’s response when RDT was introduced by the opposition in 2005. I would challenge Jon Stanhope to tell Alison Ryan that she is a redneck and that this bill, which she fully supports, is a redneck bill; that our city’s fine men and women in blue, our police force, who support this legislation, are rednecks; and that every other state and territory in Australia is governed by rednecks.
John Hargreaves, as the minister responsible once upon a time, continued to dither on this issue, citing issues with the testing equipment, questioning the accuracy of the tests and wanting to engage in a conversation about random drug testing, human rights and so on. Four years have passed and we still see this inexcusable inaction on this issue.
Mr Speaker, I invite you to read the Hansard, because by doing so you will get a sense of the real reason that this government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table on this issue. They are simply more concerned about the rights of individuals to take illicit substances and drive than they are about public safety. I just cannot interpret any other logical conclusion.
For a government that prides itself on taking the national lead on a number of issues, from gay marriage to a bill of rights, it has been found utterly wanting in a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video