Page 5494 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
From the outset, anyone who reads this legislation will see that it is essentially similar to the procedures surrounding random breath testing for alcohol. Just like for random breath testing instruments, the minister must approve an acceptable oral fluid screening device to test for the presence of a prescribed drug, and the officers authorised to carry out drug testing must also be approved under the legislation. A driver, when instructed by police and after having gone through an assessment for drug impairment, will be asked to undergo a screening test for drugs. If the oral fluid test detects the presence of a prescribed drug, the person will be taken to a hospital for a blood test, similar to what happens with a random breath test. If a blood test confirms that a prescribed drug was found to be present then the driver will be charged—and I will touch on the penalties later.
The oral fluid analysis is proven and mature technology. It is estimated to be at least 99 per cent accurate. I do note that from time to time, early on, there were rare occurrences with false positive readings. However, there is broad acknowledgment that the rate of false positives in any testing will never be zero and the accuracy is very good for this technology. Given the public benefit, I believe that the testing equipment is accurate enough to warrant the introduction of roadside RDT, as does every other jurisdiction in Australia.
The penalties for driving under the influence of a prescribed drug are a maximum 10 penalty units for a first offender and a maximum 25 penalty units for a repeat offender. This is entirely consistent with the penalties for drink-driving offences and the courts will no doubt determine the appropriate penalty accordingly.
The bill amends the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act to apply the provisions relating to drink driving already contained within the act to drug driving. This bill only allows for the detection of the active presence of a drug, rather than measure a certain concentration. In other words, the testing procedure does not allow us to test for sobriety in the same way that we would for alcohol. I stress, though, that the testing, as it is conducted in other jurisdictions, only tests for active presence of a drug in the blood system insofar as it impairs driving. In other words, the test is not designed to detect the residual presence of a drug that may have been consumed in the days or weeks leading up to the test, but rather, immediately prior to the person driving. So this is not about catching drug users; this is all about road safety. Any suggestion otherwise is pure mischief.
Mr Speaker, if you need further proof, remember that the penalties applied for this are not for drug offences but for traffic offences, the same as they are for drink driving.
In relation to some of the human rights concerns that have previously been put forward, I fail to see how random drug testing will undermine or compromise my fellow Canberrans’ human rights, or, indeed, how random drug testing departs in any way from the same procedures we have for random breath testing in terms of its impact on human rights and its compliance with the Human Rights Act. In fact, I would argue that this bill is about protecting rights. It is about protecting the rights of those people, all of our fellow Canberrans, to use our roads safely.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video