Page 2436 - Week 08 - Thursday, 6 June 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
participation in addition to mandatory. The voluntary model is likely to enhance the therapeutic outcomes of the interlock scheme and reduce the negative social outcomes that can result from someone remaining vehicle-less for a long period.
For some people it is confronting to think that by installing an interlock a drink-driver can return to the road quicker. It contrasts to a traditional view that drink-drivers are deterred by having their licence suspended. But the evidence is that this is getting the best outcomes. It is more accurate to view interlocks as an enhancement of public safety; a better penalty than simply suspending licences.
A key issue for the interlock scheme will be whether it will be implemented equitably. This is an issue I wrote to Mr Corbell about. In my letter I sought assurance that the government will implement the scheme in a way that ensures equity for offenders experiencing financial hardship. My understanding is that interlocks are quite expensive. An individual would have to pay around $1,200 to $1,300 for a six-month period with an interlock device. During this time the person will be permitted to drive on a probationary licence, subject to the interlock conditions. The cost of the device raises an immediate issue that some offenders will struggle to pay the additional cost, thereby limiting their access to a provisional licence. While I agree it is appropriate that offenders pay for interlock devices, I am concerned about the different outcomes for offenders depending on their financial circumstances.
The opportunity to volunteer for the scheme provides a useful example. The cost of the interlock will mean that wealthier offenders can volunteer to use interlocks and thereby regain a licence earlier, but poorer offenders will not have this opportunity. I do not think it is fair to have a situation where effectively the rich can purchase earlier access to the roads. Similarly, in situations where the interlock is mandatorily imposed, offenders will need to wait until they can afford to pay for the interlock device before they are given a provisional licence.
Similar concerns have been raised with me by community groups. The ACT Aboriginal Justice Centre said that they were also concerned about the costs associated with the installation, noting that it would be a significant issue for clients who access the Aboriginal Justice Centre, as many are unemployed and do not have ways to obtain the kind of money through legitimate processes or legitimate means. Similarly, the Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Association ACT strongly supports concession arrangements to be in place for the program. Members may know that ATODA has been an advocate for alcohol interlocks for some time and proposed an interlock scheme in a 2011 submission to the government.
The position I expressed in my letter to Mr Corbell was that the road transport authority should require interlock providers to cross-subsidise interlocks so that people experiencing hardship can access devices at a lower rate, or at least can pay off interlock devices over an extended period. I understand that similar arrangements operate in some other jurisdictions and the ACT currently operates a similar model for its alcohol awareness course fees. Of course, this approach would also be consistent with the recent policy changes recognising the need for flexibility in the traffic fines system in order to ensure equitable outcomes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video