Page 776 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Interestingly, when you look at the issue of road safety and this proposal, a 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 major Sydney hospital found that over 15 per cent of seriously injured crash victims had high levels of cannabis in their system. These figures are unacceptably high and point to a real problem that is widespread and to the need for action.
I believe that, despite the alarming fatality and injury rate for drivers under the influence of drugs, there is a misconception in the community about the dangers. According to the 2001 national drug strategy, four per cent of all drivers admitted to driving under the influence of drugs in the previous 12 months. This figure is even higher for younger age groups, with some 12 per cent of 20 to 29-year-olds surveyed indicating that they had undertaken drug driving.
This is why I agree with my colleague Mr Pratt that, whilst it is important to express concerns about the continued practice of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, it is more important that positive action is taken. The introduction of random drug testing in Victoria, for example, and its subsequent adoption in other states, has demonstrated that it is a viable, relatively inexpensive way to begin to combat the problems caused by driving under the influence of drugs.
Mr Hargreaves: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have debated that particular subject here in the past. This is a reflection on a vote of the Assembly, by inference, and I ask you to get Mr Mulcahy to stick to the wording of the motion.
MR MULCAHY: On the point of order: I have not reflected on that vote and I have not questioned the accuracy or otherwise. It would be like arguing that we have talked about the economy so we cannot ever talk about it again. I have simply talked about the issue of random drug testing and its relevance to road safety.
MR SPEAKER: I think it is relevant to talk about drugs. I have been listening carefully for a reflection on a previous vote and I have not heard one yet. I know that Mr Mulcahy will be careful to make sure I do not hear one for the rest of his speech.
MR MULCAHY: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Ms MacDonald’s motion also raises the point that keeping ACT roads safe is a shared responsibility, and I believe that she is right: motorists have a responsibility to drive safely and the government has a responsibility to everyone to police the roads and have a system in place that seeks to provide protection to everyone.
The question must be posed, of course: why do drivers speed and drive dangerously? Obviously, there are several answers to that. One is that excessive drug consumption—or in fact probably any drug consumption, and, certainly in the case of alcohol, misuse or excessive use of alcohol—clearly impairs judgment. Of course, the second key factor is poor attitude to driver competence.
I do not believe the government, in being preoccupied with speed, is targeting the underlying causes of road crashes. Speed restrictions and a lot of speed cameras may be a highly visible response to community pressure to do something—and I am not saying
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .