Page 1365 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
available to do the appropriate tests. I will return to this matter later. That is the subject of the amendment.
In broad terms the bill makes five amendments to the act. Firstly, it removes an individual’s potential defence of, whilst knowingly having consumed a drug, having an incorrect knowledge of the identity of that drug. Secondly, it removes the requirement that, if requested by the offender, the police have the liability to contact the offender’s medical practitioner and substitutes an obligation by police simply to facilitate that contact.
Thirdly, it removes the liability of costs for the provision of any medical examination requested by the offender. Fourthly, it changes the time a suspect can be held pending a drug or alcohol test from the current unlimited position which states, “as directed by a police officer” to a more restrictive time, that being not exceeding 30 minutes. Fifthly, it introduced a new offence of either not remaining for a screening test or refusing a screening test and providing a penalty at the highest level for a positive test.
Madam Speaker, these provisions are drafted in an attempt to strike a balance between drivers’ and offenders’ rights and the police obligation to maintain public safety. They respond also to current public understandings of the role of roadside testing in managing road safety.
The first element of the bill removes the potential defence of, whilst knowingly having consumed a drug, having an incorrect knowledge of the identity of that drug. It is the case that a defence has been put by some drivers who have consumed an illegal drug but then claimed to be under the influence of some other legal substance. It is also true that some legally available prescription drugs will impair a driver’s ability. However, these drugs are required to be packaged with appropriate warnings, including issues concerning activities such as driving a vehicle.
The fact is that someone taking a legal drug could have their driving impaired. That information about the effects on their driving is readily available. For someone knowingly taking an illegal drug and then claiming the effects of a legal substance will no longer be a defence.
The second element is one which changes the arrangements around the right of an offender to have an independent blood or drug test. The right will remain, but the onus of responsibility changes. When the Road Transport Act provisions on this matter were first applied, the community and the court system did not necessarily have much faith in the testing regimes that were being used.
It was envisaged that offenders would require and regularly seek independent confirmation of tests. The obligation was placed on police to arrange these independent tests. In practice, most offenders do not seek independent testing; so this provision of the current act is rarely used. In addition, the out of business hours times when these provisions are most likely to be used means that locating nominated doctors is often difficult.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video