Page 774 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Surely, minister, the number of offenders caught would be dramatically increased if the government restored the traditional 107,000 per annum testing regime rather than 43,000. Yes, more targeted operations are being conducted now, but with 107,000, as per the original performance budgeting limitation, you would be more successful. You have cut the number of RBTs, not because you can score the same number with more targeted tests but because you are suffering severe budgeting restrictions. It must be a budget decision that you have taken.
Now we have the added problem of drug-driving. As I explained last September, and recently when I tabled and debated my random roadside drug testing bill, if this government were serious about tackling the growing road death and accident toll, they would support the introduction of a random drug-testing regime in the ACT as outlined in my bill—and they should do it expeditiously; they should not wait another year to perhaps rebadge our tabled legislation and then bring something else forward.
Mr Hargreaves: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a reflection on a vote on a previous matter before the Assembly, that being the drug-testing bill.
MR PRATT: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I cannot accept that proposal. We are simply talking about current performances and measures that can be taken to improve road safety in the ACT. Surely that is relevant to this debate.
MR SPEAKER: Well, make sure that you do not reflect on a vote of the Assembly in the past.
MR PRATT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Statistics clearly show that drug-driving is a significant problem in the ACT and Ms MacDonald has expressed in her motion concern about people driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. But never mind expressing concern; do not express concern, Ms MacDonald. Let us tackle this problem by being tougher on people who do drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, rather than simply asking the community not to do it. History has shown that not everyone does the right thing. There have to be mechanisms in place to catch or deter those who do not act responsibly. So let us put some legislation in place that allows our police to get tougher, that gives our police the instruments on this problem of drug-driving to do something practical to curb the rising death toll.
The one to two per cent of people in our community who habitually behave dangerously and break laws will not be educated. That is the point: you cannot solve all these problems with damn education. It is an integral part of a broader strategy, but it is not the full answer. Of course, Ms MacDonald’s motion also seeks recognition of the contributing factors of lack of driver attention and of speed to our road toll. Again, these are things the ACT government can do much more about than simply ask people to be more careful.
The NRMA Road Safety Trust have supported the opposition’s calls for more police presence on the roads as they say that research clearly shows that a police presence does significantly deter reckless driving and speeding. In fact, a driver’s attention is soon refreshed when they see, or know they are likely to see at some point, a police car on the road. A police car has a much more powerful presence than simply an urban services
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .