Page 480 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is interesting that 12.6 per cent of fatalities had cannabis or stimulant activity in their systems. I refer to marijuana and ecstasy, the users of which this bill is seeking to keep off ACT roads. Go and tell the parents of someone who is killed in an accident, “We are not really sure yet whether we are being unfair. The person might have taken that drug 12 hours ago rather than one hour ago and we would be worried about their rights.” Tell that to the victims.
The government mounts a very weak case for dragging its feet. Work done in South Australia is fascinating to see. In 2004 they revealed that 28 per cent of driver or motorcycle rider fatalities tested had cannabis or stimulants in their blood. This work was undertaken by the South Australian Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure as part of a research program. Research was undertaken at Flinders University back in the mid-1990s. They studied every person who came into accident wards in all South Australian hospitals. About 30 per cent of those who had been riding motorcycles in that period showed the presence of illicit substances.
In addition to fatalities, which are often single-vehicle accidents caused by extreme behaviours that have severe consequences, the use of drugs whilst driving causes accidents and injuries. The South Australian study of drivers injured in accidents found that over 11 per cent were under the influence of cannabis or stimulants like ecstasy. A further study conducted over a year in a major Sydney hospital found that over 15 per cent of seriously injured crash victims had high levels of cannabis in their systems. Significant was the fact that the number of fatalities that had used an impairing drug between 1997 and 1999 rose almost seven per cent from the period between 1990 and 1993.
Do we sit back, as those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s did, and wait until the death toll is horrific—until everybody knows somebody who has been killed because of a drunk driver and then move? Or do we move now when we see clear evidence of a growing statistical problem; clear evidence provided by numerous independent studies that the use of these substances impairs people? We need to get off our hands now and move to achieve legislative outcomes that will send a very strong message to the people of Canberra that drug-driving is not acceptable.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (4.18): I think there is more than ample evidence before the Assembly and in the public arena to indicate that this government needs to act now and support Mr Pratt’s bill. There is no valid reason to sit back and await any further evaluation. I have noticed that this is not something the government has been concerned about with regard to legislation it wants to see brought in. The government jumped in with its Human Rights Act and with other pieces of legislation it felt was important. It was quite happy to be the first in Australia to introduce some types of legislation which it saw as important—legislation which many on this side would probably describe as social experimentation.
To be kind to the government, I suppose it was ground-breaking legislation. It might not have been a good idea, but the government introduced it and it was passed. I think the government is just making excuses here; it does not really want to introduce this type of legislation. It certainly does not want to give any acknowledgment to Mr Pratt or to the opposition for bringing this sensible bill before the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .