Page 5240 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with other jurisdictions which already undertake random drug testing of drivers, have disclosed the need for these additional provisions and have identified a number of flaws, flaws so fatal that the legislation, as it currently stands in the statute book, is essentially useless, given current drug-screening and testing technology.
The first change is to the definitions “drug screening test” and “oral fluid analysis” to reflect the way these tests function in practice, following consultation with the manufacturers of the testing devices and ACT Policing. The amendments in the bill also separate the provisions for conducting alcohol-screening tests, drug-screening tests, breath analysis and oral fluid analysis into separate divisions in the act.
A new provision is included to allow the police to ask a person to undergo one or more screening tests, to take account of the fact that screening tests may break or fail to work properly, for a range of reasons that are not the fault of either the police or the person being tested. A similar provision is in New South Wales legislation.
A provision has been included to authorise police to require people to remain at the place where tests are being carried out until the tests are completed. This provision takes account of the fact that drug-screening tests, unlike alcohol-screening tests, may take up to 10 minutes to produce a result. A similar provision is included in the Victorian random roadside-testing legislation.
A further amendment provides for all oral fluid analysis samples to be sent to the laboratory for confirmation of the result. Prosecutions will be commenced on the basis of laboratory analysis of the presence of the drugs being tested for in oral fluid or blood, not on the basis of a screening test or police analysis results.
It is essential that the drug-driving offences are also Criminal Code compliant. An amendment is included to make it clear that this offence is a strict liability offence, like the equivalent drink-driving offence.
For the offence of failing to provide a sample of oral fluid, a defence that the person was medically incapable of providing the sample is proposed to be included. Amendments are proposed to evidentiary certificate provisions to extend these provisions to laboratory analysis of oral fluid, opinions by doctors or nurses about the capacity of a person to undergo oral fluid testing without detriment to their health, and New South Wales evidentiary certificates for drug-related tests.
An amendment is included to ensure that provisions which prohibit the use of evidence about blood or breath samples taken under the act as evidence that a person was intoxicated for use in legal proceedings relating to insurance matters also extend to prohibiting the use of evidence about drug-testing results in legal proceedings relating to insurance matters.
A further amendment ensures that the existing provisions to call witnesses to give evidence relating to evidentiary certificates all provide for calling witnesses relating to drug tests.
The proposed amendments include a police power to order persons whose ability to drive safely is affected by drugs not to drive for up to 12 hours, with a power of internal review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video