Page 481 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is painfully obvious—and my colleagues Mr Mulcahy and Mr Pratt have gone through some facts—that illegal or illicit drugs impair your driving. I am amazed. The statistics from Victoria during its trial are very powerful. Something like 250 people were affected by drugs such as cannabis and amphetamines, compared with about 48 people affected by alcohol—and, of course, it is illegal to drive whilst under the influence of that. Quite clearly the law needs to be changed. Quite clearly these drugs can have a horrible effect on your driving ability. Indeed, a person affected by cannabis or some other illicit drug such as heroin is probably far more affected than someone who has simply been drinking.
In one instance I saw in the ACT courts, a person who was badly affected was charged with driving under the influence of a drug or alcohol. That person was caught driving, luckily at only 30 or 40 kilometres an hour, on the wrong side of the road outside the old Hotel Wellington, which is now the Rydges Capital Hill Hotel, on a two-lane, one-way highway, at about 4.00 in the morning, weaving all over the road. Luckily it was that time of the morning. If someone had been coming along and had not seen that vehicle, they would probably be dead. Luckily it was the police who came along and picked that person up. The person was probably lucky that the police did pick them up.
We are not talking just about the safety of innocent, law-abiding road users who might be subject to serious injuries or even death caused by someone who is doped up to the nines; we are also talking about the person themselves. As much as anything, the drink-driving laws in this community are designed to discourage people from getting behind the wheel and driving when they are under the influence of alcohol, thereby protecting not only the community but also protecting those people from themselves. I think it is important for this government to take a stand and do what their Victorian and South Australian colleagues are doing.
Victoria’s legislation has now been adopted; it is in force. They have had a very successful trial. Why don’t we just adopt that lock, stock and barrel, and bring it in here? We can do that by adopting Mr Pratt’s bill. By all means see how it goes for six months. I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised how effective it is. I am sure we will see some equally horrendous statistics in respect of people affected by illicit drugs whilst driving. I am sure that, if this law comes in, our society is going to be a lot safer as a result. There is obviously a move down this very sensible track in the rest of Australia.
I was concerned but not surprised to hear what I regard as some spurious arguments. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties said that random drug testing is an invasion of privacy. So is the killing of an innocent victim by some drug-induced person who is driving a car whilst doped up to the nines. That is an invasion of that innocent victim’s privacy, and indeed a lot more. I think statements like that should be treated with the contempt they deserve. What about the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens? From another perspective, what about trying to do something to help the person who is taking those drugs and prevent them causing damage to others or to themselves?
I think there is an irrefutably strong case, and the statistics bear that out. We are not talking about a few statistics, as if this were something that has not been there for very long and is something we are only just coming to grips with. The statistics which have been put forward in this debate show quite clearly that this problem has been ongoing for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .