|
Home
Speeches
Home
Questions
Home
|
The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:01): As members would
expect, I rise to indicate that Family First sees this as a good initiative
and, for that reason, is supportive of the legislation. However, we have a
few concerns, which I will outline in my speech. Family First is a strong
supporter of any legislation that improves, or seeks to improve, road safety.
There are many mums and dads out there who have lost a child on the road
thanks to drink drivers and drugged out drivers, and they want solutions to
this problem. In fact, I am informed that some 33 per cent of drivers and
motorcycle riders or the like killed on our roads are above the legal limit
of alcohol, and some 24 per cent of fatalities tested positive to THC,
speed or ecstasy post mortem, and that is far too high.
The concern I raised a moment ago is that it is
possible, in our view, that this bill will actually result in a spike in
driving whilst disqualified offending. I put that question to the minister,
and perhaps she can address that issue in her summing up, that is, is there a
way in this bill of preventing any increase in driving whilst disqualified?
Having said that, overwhelmingly this bill implements positive initiatives,
which is why Family First supports it.
In simple terms, this bill makes the alcohol
interlock device mandatory, and it also implements many of the Cossey report recommendations into the drug testing
trials. As I understand it, the alcohol interlock device has been around now
for at least a decade, and it works somewhat like a car immobiliser, that is,
a driver blows into the device, and it will beep the horn and flash the
lights if any alcohol is detected in that particular vehicle.
The Hon. Carmel Zollo
interjecting:
The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, I am aware of that,
thank you. Apparently, as I understand it, in some cases the interlock device
may even stop the car. As you would expect, there are hefty penalties for
having someone else blow into the device, and that is obviously not the
intention of the legislation. It is fair to say that this technology has
probably saved dozens of lives over the years, and I for one am very glad
that the police have this available to them as a tool.
Installing the interlock device was at one stage
voluntary; that is, if you were convicted for drink driving and you had
sufficient means, you would have to serve only half of the drink driving
disqualification and could serve twice the remaining portion with an interlock
device installed. Of course, you had to be fairly well off, because, as I
understand it, the interlock device costs over $1,000 to install, and there
are hefty monitoring fees in addition to that. The research from QUT in
Brisbane says that the scheme is used mostly by offenders with a 'higher
economic status'.
I believe that this legislation gets it right
when it makes these devices mandatory. As I understand it, the Cossey report did not talk much about the interlock
device. I do not know where the momentum has come from to make these devices
mandatory (perhaps the manufacturers of the device have had some say in that)
but, nonetheless, it is a good initiative, so long as the cost of the device
does not mean that the uptake is low.
What I understand from the Family First briefing
about these costs is that mandatory usage should result in cost savings. We
are still looking at offenders paying about $1,200 per year for the device,
which will mean that some drivers will simply not be able to take it up and,
sadly, may therefore drive disqualified, as I indicated in my opening
remarks. I guess that it goes without saying that chronic drunks are often
not the richest people in the world, but the 35 per cent discount for
pensioners will encourage the installation of the device for that group of
people. I
note the concerns raised by the Hon. Mr Wade a moment ago. I think he raises
a fair point in that it is unusual for these measures to be pitched at
different levels of expense, if you like, for different offenders.
Another element to keep in mind is that, in
changing to a mandatory scheme, the discount in licence disqualification
available under the voluntary scheme will now be done away with. This means
that a driver will have to serve the full disqualification, which can mean
their being off the road for three, four or, in some circumstances, even five
years. After that time, the offender will still have to go onto an interlock
device for many more years before having their licence fully restored—something
that Family First thinks is a positive move.
The penalties for drink driving in South
Australia are quite severe in some cases, and I am certainly glad that that
is the case. Opponents to this state's drink driving regime, and the
penalties associated with it, may say that the disqualification periods were
first put in place in the 1950s, when the city was smaller and transportation
was easier. However, in my view, as Adelaide has spread, cars have gone from
being a luxury to a necessity, especially if you live in one of the suburban
fringe areas. There is some truth to the argument that cars are now a
necessity and that therefore a licence is also a necessity, especially for
many people to get to and from work. However, drink driving is a very serious
offence, and we should not shy away from that. As a result, serious
disincentives need to be introduced.
Under this legislation, two readings of over 0.15
within a five-year period will see someone lose their licence for three
years. As a rough rule of thumb, each standard alcoholic drink will put a
driver up approximately 0.02 grams per 100 millilitres of blood and,
depending on their metabolism, their reading will go
down about 0.015 grams per 100 millilitres of blood per hour. So, a high
reading of 0.15 (that is, a category 3 offence) means that the driver got
behind the wheel after consuming approximately eight standard drinks within
an hour. Family First does not have any tolerance for anyone who is prepared
to drink at that level and then get behind the wheel of a car. To say that
they have just had slightly too many when they have drunk to that level is
absolute nonsense and, frankly, they should face severe penalties.
The real question revolves around the best way to
control these dangerous drivers. Is it to take away their licence, or is it
best to have an interlock device installed earlier in the disqualification?
In effectively increasing the disqualification period before an interlock
device can be installed, the government suggests that the best way to control
dangerous drink drivers is to remove their licence for longer periods of
time.
This is the concern: unfortunately, offences
against the authority of the court are skyrocketing. OCSAR tells me that in
1988 some 1,701 charges of driving were laid while a licence was already
suspended or cancelled, and this figure skyrocketed to some 3,876 offences in
2005. Unfortunately, this tells me that, in many cases, people are ignoring
the law as it stands. Dangerous drivers are simply not complying with
court-imposed licence disqualifications, and the question is: do we cater for
that or pander to it? Absolutely not.
We tell our magistrates to imprison these
offenders if their offending is severe enough, as they should if they follow
the precedent set down in the case of Cadd. But I
would like to have seen in this legislation a focus on putting offenders on
an interlock device as soon as possible (which largely makes their driving
safe), rather than simply telling them they cannot drive.
The second major element of the bill of which I
am strongly supportive expands and makes permanent the current drug driving
trial. In effect, most of the provisions relating to drink driving will now
be mirrored with drug driving, apart from the interlock scheme, which will
not be required for drug driving. We will see recidivist drug drivers facing
longer periods of disqualification, and this is entirely appropriate.
In the first year of operation, the data we have
suggests that some 10,097 roadside drug tests were conducted. An astonishing
294 drivers who were tested were found to have one or more of the three
tested drugs in their system, and this figure equates to one in 34 of those
tested. Of
the same pool of drivers, only 147 (I say 'only', but significantly fewer than
294) were found with the prescribed concentration of alcohol in their system.
It astonishes me when these figures seem to show that drug driving is twice
as common as drink driving on our roads. Of course, these are very small
statistics and it may not bear out that way, but I suspect that it probably
will.
I am advised by the minister's staff that the new
drug test will test for THC for five hours and be able to detect other drugs,
that is, amphetamines and ecstasy, for 25 hours. Either one or a combination
of these drugs is found in 24 per cent of drivers killed on our roads. Let us
get them off the road.
Family First did have several queries of the
government regarding the roll-out of this scheme in country areas. We are
advised, and it should go on the record, that the training of traffic
enforcement police officers for the expansion of driver drug testing
commenced in February 2008, that country training of police officers
commenced at the beginning of April 2008, that country training will be
running concurrently with training in the metropolitan area and that a total
of 260 traffic enforcement personnel statewide
will be trained in drug driver testing once the expansion training is
complete.
In addition to these members, apparently some 120
general duties members will be trained in rural areas, and as I understand it
they are specifically targeting Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port
Pirie, the Riverland, Mount Gambier and the areas immediately surrounding
them as screeners only. These people have been trained to assist traffic
enforcement personnel for testing in country areas.
As I have these assurances from the minister's
office, Family First is pleased with these developments. In summary, we will
support the second reading of the bill. We are not aware of any amendments at
this stage, but we see this as a positive initiative, and anything that gets
these people off the roads should be supported.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.
|
|
%20Bill_files/image002.jpg)
%20Bill_files/image004.jpg)