Page 1168 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and we educate them to drive a car carefully in our community. Can you imagine a driver who is driving drug affected and what that potentially means? Indeed, there is compelling evidence from around the country involving fatal crashes on this very argument about what has happened to drivers who have been driving drug affected.
AAMI also found widespread support for random drug testing of drivers through research conducted as part of its annual crash index. Nationally, AAMI found that 90 per cent of people agreed there should be random drug testing of drivers. An investigation was also undertaken in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria of a significant caseload of people killed in road accidents prior to these states introducing this legislation. I alluded to this point a moment ago. Twenty-five per cent had been found to have drugs other than alcohol in their systems, with mainly cannabis and stimulants—for example, methamphetamines—identified in their systems. So Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales studies of fatal crashes found that 25 per cent of those dead drivers analysed had been drug affected.
On the dubious point raised by the government regarding human rights and harm minimisation, it is just a smokescreen; it is a distraction by this government to get away from their responsibility to behave in a proper and responsible way. The minister says he will not be involved in punishing drug addicts for their addiction, and the Hansard reinforces the fact that he actually said this yesterday. This legislation does not punish drug-affected drivers for their addiction; it punishes them for driving while under the influence and placing other drivers at risk. If this is the government’s view then the ACT already punishes alcoholics for their addiction without due respect to harm minimisation by conducting random breath testing.
What about the human rights of the innocent driver who may be killed or injured as a result of the impaired driving of a drug-affected driver? Where is their harm minimisation? With respect to the 93 per cent of Canberrans who do not drive while drug affected, what about their right to be safe from drug-affected drivers? If the government’s pre-occupation and priority is with the human rights of drug-affected drivers, what about the rights of innocent drivers?
It is such a bunkum argument, and it shows that this government just drag the chain. They are inactive, they are indecisive, they faff around with ideology, they worry about the sorts of things that really are not fundamental when we talk about the safety of our community. The government’s first duty of care is to protect all Canberrans and, after they have protected them, to make sure they at least have a chance to be financially secure and comfortable, and can grow in this community. But their first duty of care is to protect them—to protect the ACT community. They are not making a good fist of that, having regard to the attitude expressed in this place yesterday by this hapless minister for municipal services.
This bill brings us into line with every other state in Australia that has already introduced and has been using similar legislation to target drug driving with high levels of success. Tasmania is the latest, with the legislation passed only last week. We are behind the eight-ball in this place. Last year, Western Australia and Queensland joined Victoria and introduced legislation after studies revealed that one in 10 drivers thought it was safer to drive under the influence of drugs rather than alcohol.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .