Page 485 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Victorian experience is very clear. There was a two-year trial. There is plenty of evidence there for all of us to have a look at. As I was saying before, the threat of drug-driving in the country, including the ACT, has been very clear for a long time. Why has the government not seized the opportunity? I think the minister would really like to see something put in place as soon as possible but I will bet that his colleagues, and that civil liberties loving Chief Minister, have put the kybosh on any initiative he might otherwise have taken.
The minister raises concern about there being a problem with testing for minor drugs. Of course there will be mistakes. Mistakes are already made with random breath testing. We know that people are sometimes unfairly detained for alcohol testing. In any policy like this there is some risk management involved. But are we going to be saying, “Oh, damn it. We’ll let the 20 to 25 per cent of Canberran drivers who are drug-affected go down the highway because we are damn frightened that we might unfairly detain 0.1 per cent of people who might be on Sudafed or cough medicine versus the 20 to 25 per cent who are driving whilst drug affected and might kill somebody else”? There is an illogicality here. I think good governance means that you take a minor risk.
Why not trial this regime? We can lift the Victorian model lock, stock and barrel with the two years of trial experience behind it. We can plant that policy here in the ACT now. We can run a six to nine-month trial—six months would perhaps be enough—and adapt the Victorian model to the ACT landscape. In that timeframe we can tweak out these little concerns about other substances which might cloud the issue. Any good government policy has safety nets in place to take care of people who have been unfairly detained. Out of the thousands of people tested in the Victorian trial, nine people were accidentally unfairly detained. Those people have been compensated. Good policy means that you can take care of that. You must have some risk if you are going to put in place good policy which deters offenders. The government is just not thinking in those terms.
In summary, there is a growing threat across the country and in the ACT. Drug-affected driver testing is needed. The Victorian experience has provided us with plenty of information and a good model which we can adopt. Unfortunately, the government did not come here today with any amendments. With this model we can test at least for cannabis and amphetamines—and other adjustments could be made. The government will not support this bill because they have failed to think ahead. They are lazy in their governance and they will not protect the community because they do not have the vision to take care of these matters.
MR SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Question put:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
The Assembly voted—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .