Page 479 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
individual’s attention span, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination and ability to concentrate.
When one looks at the fact sheets put out by the national drug and alcohol research people, the evidence is overwhelming. Studies have consistently shown that cannabis can cause a range of problems such as poor ability to maintain lane control. The field studies that have been undertaken have found higher rates of cannabis use by people who have been involved in accidents than the rate that would be expected by chance. Under the last national drug strategy household survey about five per cent of males and two per cent of females reported driving under the influence of a drug other than alcohol. Cannabis is the most common illicit drug used.
It amazes me that we keep going on about this. I am disappointed with this minister. He is probably hamstrung by the directions he has been given, but there is a reluctance to go forward with this issue. All the excuses were trotted out this morning. There was procrastination on this critical issue—any reason not to act. The evidence has been out there for decades. As I recall before I was in this place—Mr Stefaniak will correct me if my timing is incorrect but I believe it was Mr Humphries who did this when he was here—the powers of police to test people for drugs if brought in as a consequence of a motor vehicle accident were extended. I was very pleased to be one of the people who lobbied for those changes.
Scientists have mimicked driving conditions in research and have shown that the effects of drugs such as cannabis can cause serious problems with driving. There is the added issue of the combination of alcohol with drugs, which is, of course, deadly. Some have argued that the effect of cannabis on drivers is minimal, but the facts and statistics speak for themselves. There was recently an advertisement on television warning against drink-driving which made the point that a few drinks will not prevent a person from driving; they will still be able to change gears, accelerate or brake. However, the alcohol in that person’s system will affect their ability to deal with unforeseen circumstances or react to the conditions around them. This can lead to tragedy, and indeed drugs have the same impact on drivers.
The effect of illicit drugs on drivers is borne out by an examination of the statistics relating to road fatalities in Australia between 1990 and 1999. According to the drug survey, four per cent of drivers admitted to driving under the influence of drugs. It is interesting that, of a total of 3,398 driver fatalities investigated in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia for the period between 1990 and 1999, impairment drugs were present in 23.5 per cent of cases. And we have Mr Hargreaves saying here in the Assembly, “Oh yes. We need to wait for a while and see.” That is 23.5 per cent of fatalities—nearly one in four of the deaths in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia.
The governments of Victoria and New South Wales have had enough sense to move on this issue. They are all about saving lives on the road, not worrying about the possible political unpopularity of moving into an area of supposed recreational activity. Mr Speaker, 9.6 per cent of those fatalities tested positive to both alcohol and drugs. I would contend that both this Assembly and the government have a duty to protect our citizens by moving now to show that Canberra is not taking a soft view towards the use of drugs when a person is in command of a motor vehicle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .