Page 1810 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The provisions in the bill place a mandatory interlock condition on high-risk drink-driving offenders who apply for a probation licence after serving a period of licence disqualification. High-risk drink drivers are people with a proven track record of poor decision making when it comes to drinking and driving—that is, drink drivers who have committed three or more offences within five years and offenders with a breath or blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.15 grams.
The interlock condition means that these drivers are not permitted to drive a motor vehicle unless it is fitted with an alcohol interlock. They are also subject to a zero breath or blood alcohol concentration at all times while driving. The interlock will prevent these drivers from starting or continuing to drive if alcohol is detected by the interlock device.
This focus in the bill on high-risk offenders is appropriate. Research shows that high-range drink-driving offenders are more likely to be involved in a crash than low- and mid-range drink-driving offenders. Similarly, the risk of a person being involved in a crash resulting in injury, property damage or death increases exponentially in accordance with the number of offences a person commits.
There is substantial research demonstrating that high-range and repeat offenders are the most likely to have established patterns of alcohol dependence or abuse. High-range first offenders and repeat offenders also constitute the greatest risk of drink-driving recidivism.
Low-range first offenders are the drink drivers least likely to be alcohol abusers or alcohol dependent and are statistically the least likely to be detected drink driving again. This bill will not impose mandatory interlocks on this group as it would be unlikely to return measurable road safety improvements and would impose unnecessary economic costs, both on the community and those offenders themselves. However, these offenders may elect to have a voluntary interlock condition placed on their licence in exchange for a reduction in their disqualification period.
It is possible this bill may attract criticism in some quarters for allowing a convicted drink driver to return to driving before completing the full disqualification period ordered by the court. However, undertaking the interlock program will enable offenders to develop the habit of separating drinking and driving behaviours in a supported situation earlier on, in conjunction with therapeutic approaches to address alcohol use issues that may also be present.
In this way, interlocks can contribute to prolonged and sustained changes in behaviour which will reduce the risk of further drink driving. This is particularly the case where the interlock programs incorporate a therapeutic component, as this bill does.
The bill requires high-risk offenders to undergo pre-sentencing assessment by the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service to determine whether a treatment component should be recommended in conjunction with the use of the interlock device. The court will consider the assessment report when sentencing these offenders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video