Page 1687 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The fact that this is the government’s second amendment bill about the same issue highlights the fact that bills are often very technical and often require technical amendments. This is a reality of legislation, whether it comes from the government, the Greens or the Liberal Party.
On the substance of the bill we are debating today, it makes a number of relatively minor amendments. The bill consolidates the law that driver trainers must have a blood alcohol content of zero. This change was passed last year. However, this new amendment adds a missing enforcement mechanism to ensure that driver trainers are subject to the random testing provisions for both alcohol and drugs, and that the offence provisions are available. The Greens agree with the rule in principle and this amendment is obviously a sensible one to ensure that it can be enforced.
The bill also makes some amendments to the blood alcohol content permitted for people holding foreign country licences. For anyone holding a licence from a country that is not on a federally managed list of countries recognised as having appropriately equivalent licensing requirements, that person is subject to a blood alcohol limit of zero. I do accept that this is an appropriate requirement. These drivers are considered to be in a special category, along with people like learner drivers and instructor drivers, unless they gain some recognised qualification. The change also brings us in line with equivalent rules around the country.
I do have some concerns about the way this change will be publicised. Currently, these drivers are subject to a blood alcohol content of .05, meaning obviously that they can drink some alcohol before driving. This will now be reduced to zero. It is important that the people for whom the rules are changing are made thoroughly aware of this. It would be quite unfair for someone’s blood alcohol limit to change from .05 to zero and for them to not have an appropriate warning, particularly given the serious penalties and stigma that can arise from drink-driving charges. I would suggest that there will be a limited number of these special licence holders in Canberra—perhaps a number that would make it appropriate or able for them to be written to individually. I repeat my request that the government do this.
Another change made under this bill allows for blood samples to be taken by a doctor or nurse at a sampling facility other than a hospital. This is for the purpose of drug or alcohol testing. I agree that it is not appropriate for the samples to always be taken at a hospital, especially considering the resource pressures in hospitals, and that there will be other advantages to using other venues, such as increased privacy for the person being tested. The places prescribed as sampling facilities will of course need to be carefully selected and suitable. I would appreciate it if the minister could keep me and the Assembly informed of how these will be defined in the regulation.
The bill also allows for a body sample to be taken for the purpose of drug testing in certain situations. This is an invasive procedure that should only occur in very limited and specific circumstances. It would be inappropriate for this type of testing to be carried out just because the screening equipment was unavailable. I am satisfied with the limited circumstances that the bill prescribes. The procedure can only occur where the person has already committed a serious driving offence of negligent driving or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video