Page 448 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
one of the problems the Victorian government has encountered, many of which need to be closely examined to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes.
Random drug testing should not be implemented alone. We need to educate the public about the extent of the impairment that results from the use of particular drugs, the quantities that lead to impairment and how long people need to delay driving after use. This is difficult because, unlike alcohol, we are talking about substances of which the possession and use is illegal, and this is hardly conducive to disclosure.
We also need to work with other jurisdictions because much travel in our territory is across our borders. We have all seen road movies—and I am just thinking about one that I saw recently called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas—which portray the use of various substances. We have got to make sure that these sorts of examples are not being shown to young people and made to look really cool. But that is less the reality than red-eyed truck drivers trying to meet their deadlines in order to scrape together a living.
Many truck drivers use amphetamines to stay awake in order to drive the incredible distances necessary to enable them to make a living. In the interests of our safety and, just as importantly, their safety, major changes are needed to be made to the industry if we are to enforce this. There needs to be stricter regulation and enforcement of the rules about the length of time that truck drivers can be on the road. Also, less pressure needs to be placed on drivers by companies. The economic imperative placed on truck drivers needs to be addressed. To punish drivers by, for instance, banning them from driving, often means you are also punishing families by removing their income.
Finally, I would like to address two statements made by Mr Pratt in relation to this bill. First, he said that random drug testing would significantly impact the growing trend of drug taking amongst our young people. Secondly, he said that evidence suggests that many people socialise now using drugs rather than alcohol, as they believe they will be less likely to be picked up for drug driving than drink-driving. I would be very keen to hear the evidence Mr Pratt has based these two statements on. Also, I would like to find out how many young people who take recreational drugs he has talked to.
It is highly unlikely that random drug testing will significantly impact on the growing trend of drug taking amongst our young people. Random breath testing does not appear to have reduced the level of young people drinking excessively—it has just decreased the numbers who drink and drive. And I am sure that is the intention. But why would random drug testing be able to influence young people in a way that random breath testing has not?
When Mr Pratt says that many people choose to use drugs rather than alcohol when socialising, as they believe they will be less likely to be picked up for drug-driving than for drink-driving, how many is he talking about? I think he would find that many more people use drugs than alcohol because—and I must say this comes from young people—it is often a cheaper option than drinking and they want the high alert euphoric feeling that comes with some drugs like ecstasy rather than the depressant in alcohol.
In comparison to Mr Pratt’s proposals, the government’s Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Amendment Bill appears to make very little change to our current system, and I am not sure how it tackles the problem of impaired driving. For that reason, I appreciate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .