Page 1121 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a broader discussion of these issues. And what is Mr Pratt afraid of? Why is he not willing to have a discussion about it in this community? This community has not had the discussion about a range of issues which are very, very important.
For example—and indeed Mr Pratt has failed to address these in his comments today—in a number of jurisdictions a zero tolerance approach is adopted in relation to the presence of any of the drugs identified for testing in a person’s system, in particular THC. THC can remain in the bloodstream for a considerable period of time after somebody has consumed it, say, through the use of cannabis. Is it a risk to the community for the presence of THC to be in the bloodstream for an extended period of time?
Mr Hargreaves: Say, two weeks.
MR CORBELL: For example, up to two weeks, as my colleague Mr Hargreaves said. These are important considerations.
Other considerations, of course, are: will this lead to the prospect of people being convicted of driving under the influence of drugs subsequently facing problems with their employment because they have been deemed to have been driving with illegal drugs in their system? Will that be a consequence of these new laws? Again, this is an issue that warrants more serious consideration.
Of course it is worth while looking at the approach adopted in other jurisdictions. And this is indeed why the government believes a more detailed assessment by and conversation with the Canberra community is required. For example, in Victoria legislation was passed that provides for the random roadside drug testing for THC and methamphetamine but did not include MDMA until July 2006.
In New South Wales legislation was in force allowing random roadside saliva drug testing, charging motorists with driving under the influence of drugs if impairment is suspected and blood sampling for drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents. Victoria does not have blood sampling for drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents, for example; so there is an inconsistency there.
THC and methamphetamine are tested for in South Australia, and MDMA was added later. RDT legislation was passed in Queensland, trials were conducted and a more comprehensive program started in December last year. Such a program does not exist in the Northern Territory at this time. In Tasmania a broader range of drugs are tested for, not just MDMA, THC and methamphetamine. So there are different approaches across different jurisdictions.
But the most important consideration is to understand what level of drug in a person’s bloodstream should be considered to be dangerous or a threat. We have established this after a period of time in relation to alcohol but we have not done so yet in relation to drugs. The research into the impact of drugs on driving is a relatively new but rapidly expanding field and there is increasing evidence, although no direct causal link at this point, that certain illicit drugs such as cannabis, methamphetamine and ecstasy and indeed some prescription medications, such as benzodiazepines, can impair driving ability.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .