Page 5718 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is clear that you cannot learn to drive and learn to manage alcohol intake at the same time. It is unfair and difficult to try to impose the responsibility on special drivers. This is not a discrimination based on age but a necessary legislative distinction based on a broad range of research, not to mention the evidence of all other Australian jurisdictions which have imposed similar measures.
Following that, we support the changes to the definition of special drivers. It is clear that you need to ensure the best possible reaction times and awareness when you are travelling with dangerous goods or operating a heavy vehicle. Also if you are a professional driving instructor, you need to ensure that you are in a position to provide the correct level of instruction and support.
I do, however, raise concerns with the provision that requires driving supervisors—and this is essentially the mum and dad supervisors who are teaching their children how to drive—to have zero BAC. At the moment there is no restriction and that is clearly unsafe and inappropriate. But this provision has the risk of going too far and, I think, unduly restricts responsible adults who are supervising drivers whilst they are actually under the legal BAC.
The case has not been made that someone who is legally allowed to drive with a legal BAC of 0.05 is not capable of supervising a learner. I note that only the Northern Territory has introduced this sort of legislation and we do need to be very careful not to be unnecessarily punitive when it comes to these legislative changes.
I was considering an amendment to this effect but, on advice from the government and the Greens that they would not support such an amendment, I have not brought it forward today. However, I foreshadow that the opposition may do so at some stage in the future.
The changes to the definition of repeat offenders and the subsequent ability of such persons to apply for restricted or probationary licences sends a strong message to people that alcohol and drug driving offences will be treated extremely severely. The concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee around the principle of statutory construction are noted but we do not believe that the departure from the principle raises any issues. Drink and drug driving laws are well known. The benefit of sending a strong message to drink or drug driving offenders greatly outweighs any intrusion against this principle.
The importance of education and rehabilitation is an important area of criminality. Ultimately, while a fairytale outcome would be that no-one ever drives under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that is sadly not true. Therefore, it is imperative that we ensure that offenders are taught the reasons for the offence and learn not to commit the same action.
I foreshadow, as I have circulated earlier, that the Liberals will be making an amendment in this area. We want to ensure that not only drink drivers but also drug drivers are required to undertake an awareness course as part of the penalty for the offence. As the bill currently stands, it creates a disparity between the offences of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video