Page 2374 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
zero and .02, if the driver can prove that their reading was the result of the innocent consumption of alcohol—for example, for religious observance or medicine. The opportunity has been taken for a similar defence provision to be included in this bill.
It was noted in reviewing the BAC for special drivers, which includes learner drivers, that there were no special BAC requirements for instructors or supervisors of a learner. This means that presently a person can legally drink and be instructing a learner driver.
This raises a concern on two counts. One is that it is inconsistent with the message to young or inexperienced drivers to permit a person instructing or supervising them to drink and then provide driving instruction. The second is that instructors or supervisors of novice drivers need, in teaching another person to drive, to exercise a degree of skill and concentration above and beyond what is required when they are physically in charge of the vehicle themselves. For these reasons the bill extends the zero BAC to persons instructing or supervising learner drivers, including heavy vehicle learners.
I should also take the opportunity to indicate that I have no advice to suggest that there has been an issue with professional driving instructors instructing students after having consumed alcohol. The scenario that these amendments are designed to avoid is more likely to arise where, say, a mother or father has had a couple of drinks at a friend’s barbecue and then allows a learner-driver child to drive them home. While I, of course, support and encourage the use of designated drivers, it is not appropriate for the designated driver to be a learner driver under the supervision of a person who has consumed alcohol. The changes to a zero BAC for special drivers and to persons instructing learner drivers will be widely publicised to ensure that affected drivers, parents and driving instructors are aware of the new laws.
As I mentioned earlier, a key purpose of these reforms is to send the message that there are serious consequences if a person is caught drink driving. One of the obvious deterrents to drink driving is the potential for a drink-driving conviction to result in loss of access to a driver licence. The review of the drink-driving laws indicated that existing ACT provisions are relatively lenient compared with interstate practice in terms of enabling convicted drink drivers to continue to drive. I am sure members will have seen or heard the advertisements by legal firms encouraging persons facing a drink-driving charge to seek assistance to retain their driving licence and suggesting that a conviction need not necessarily put an offender off the road.
Under current laws, while persons who are convicted of drink driving are liable to serve a period of licence disqualification, restricted licences, sometimes known as work licences, can be applied for by some persons convicted of drink driving to enable them to continue to drink during a period of licence disqualification. The court, in granting a restricted licence, must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist justifying the grant of the licence.
It is evident that a substantial number of ACT drink drivers, including offenders with previous drink-driving convictions, are successful in persuading the court that their circumstances are exceptional and are obtaining a restricted licence. Indeed, 558 such licences were issued in 2008-09. I mentioned earlier that around 1,500 people are charged each year with drink driving, so it would seem that around a third of them are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video