Page 92 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
practice it may arise where a police officer observes a driver driving erratically or exiting a licensed venue behaving in a way that suggests intoxication or impairment before driving a vehicle.
The second pre-condition is that police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person was either the driver of a vehicle that was involved in a road accident or has failed to comply with a police request to stop a vehicle the person was driving on a road or road-related area.
The third pre-condition is that police must have an existing power under the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act to require that person to undergo an alcohol or drug screening test. The fourth pre-condition is that police must reasonably believe that that person is on the premises. Only if all these pre-conditions are satisfied are the police able to enter the premises to require the person to undertake a drug or alcohol screening test in accordance with the provisions of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act.
The existing restrictions on testing within the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act will apply to testing undertaken in premises under these provisions. Testing will need to be undertaken within the existing time limits relating to how long after a person has stopped driving or is involved in an accident a screening test can be undertaken. For example, police cannot enter premises to require a test if more than two hours have passed since the accident. In the case of a driver failing to stop when required by police, police cannot enter premises to require a screening test if more than two hours have elapsed since the person ceased to be the driver of the motor vehicle.
A further safeguard is that police officers who enter premises to undertake drug or alcohol screening tests must not remain there for longer than is required to conduct those tests. Any proposal to allow a police officer or other government representative to enter a person’s home should rightly be properly scrutinised to ensure it is appropriate and there are no other reasonable alternatives.
The government has considered these amendments carefully and I am confident that they will help protect all road users. It is an unfortunate reality that a minority of drivers who are involved in a road accident leave the scene of the accident and enter and remain within premises, refusing police requests that they be tested for alcohol or drugs. Similarly, there is also a small minority of drivers who, while driving, appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and, when requested to stop by police, refuse to do so and, instead, quickly enter premises to avoid testing and any resulting sanctions for drink or drug driving.
As I have previously mentioned, the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act imposes strict time limits on when alcohol or drug testing may be undertaken. A driver’s refusal to leave the premises or to allow the police officer to enter to conduct the necessary testing means no evidence can be obtained to support an appropriate charge being laid against these drivers. I am sure all members of this place are aware of the significant dangers posed by drivers who drive while affected by alcohol or drugs. This amendment closes an existing loophole to ensure that drivers who flout our drink and drug-driving laws are detected and appropriately dealt with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video