ROAD TRAFFIC (CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL WHILE DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2009. Page 3893.)

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:19): We support the bill, with several amendments that have been picked up by the member under his own name. Drink driving is one of the main causes of road death in South Australia and each year over one third of drivers and riders killed in road crashes have a BAC over the legal limit of .05, with the majority more than three times over the legal limit. Drinking is undisputably a major issue in terms of the number of deaths and serious injuries that arise as a consequence of consumption of alcohol.

In recent years, the state government has introduced a raft of initiatives to deter drink driving behaviour. This includes increasing the number of breath tests being performed, the introduction of full-time mobile random breath testing and immediate loss of licence for high level drink driving offenders. Severe penalties apply to drivers who commit drink driving offences. Penalties may include heavy fines of up to $2,500, licence disqualification, demerit points, and even imprisonment in some cases.

On 1 May 2009, the government introduced a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme in South Australia. The mandatory scheme requires drivers who commit a serious drink driving offence to have an alcohol interlock fitted to their vehicle at the end of their licence disqualification for a period of at least 12 months. These penalties are designed to send a clear message to drivers about the severity of drinking and operating a motor vehicle and to highlight the danger these drivers present to themselves and the safety of other drivers on the road.

While consuming alcohol while driving does not mean that the driver is impaired by alcohol or that they are committing a drink driving offence, I agree with the honourable member that this action sends an extremely poor message to the community, especially our young people, and goes against what the government is trying to achieve through its drink driving campaigns and separating drinking and driving.

I think most members have seen the Motor Accident Commission television campaign that has been run within the last month and will be run again on several occasions next year. The message there is: 'Plan ahead. Don't combine drinking and driving.' It is for this reason that the government supports the intention of the bill moved by the Hon. Bob Such MP.

I acknowledge that such an amendment will also move us closer towards national consistency, with New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania already having a similar law in place.

Although the government supports the bill, we propose some amendments which have been picked up by the member for Fisher under his name, and they will be dealt with in due course. These amendments are supported by the South Australian police and are really their input into the bill.

The first amendment seeks to include an evidentiary presumption that the substance that was being consumed was alcohol in the absence of proof to the contrary. This is the same presumption currently found in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and will assist police prosecuting the prescribed offence.

Another amendment seeks to replace the reference to 'alcohol' with a reference to 'liquor'. Alcohol is found in a number of substances that are not usually consumed for the purpose of their alcoholic content but for other legitimate purposes: here we are talking about cough mixtures, medicines and mouthwashes. It is preferable to refer to 'liquor' to avoid including these substances in the offence.

Currently all expiation fees for offences under the Road Traffic Act appear in the regulations and are subject to the annual indexation process. If the expiation fees as currently proposed by the Hon. Bob Such were placed in the act, they would be the only expiation fees in that piece of legislation and they would not be subject to the annual indexation process. The honourable member has accepted that amendment, as I said, and is now proposing it under his own name.

I must also point out that the proposed expiation fees in the bill are relatively high in comparison to other road safety offences with similar road safety risks. For example, using a mobile phone while driving currently results in an expiation fee of $218, speeding less than 15 km/h over the speed limit is $190, failing to wear a seat belt is $240, and driving without having proper control of a vehicle is $99. The expiation fee for the more serious offence of driving with a blood alcohol content of between .05 and .79 is $438.

In addition, currently the expiation fee for offences involving vehicles that are not motor vehicles, such as bicycles, an animal-drawn vehicle, an animal that is being ridden or drawing a vehicle, as well as motorised wheel chairs that can travel over 10 km/h, is lower than for motor vehicles. The expiation fee for driving, towing, stopping or parking such a vehicle is around $26.

Accordingly, for consistency and relativity across different offences, the government proposes—and the mover has accepted—that the expiation fee for the proposed offence where the vehicle involved is a motor vehicle should be set at a lower level, for example, in line with the offence of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile phone, that is, $218, with an even lower fee of $26 applying to the driver or rider of a vehicle if that vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

These amendments, which have been accepted by the honourable member, build on his bill, which is an excellent proposition, in a constructive and a practical way.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:26): I am pleased to indicate that the state Liberal opposition intends to support the bill which the member for Fisher has brought before the house. Obviously, the bill looks to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. It proposes that a person must not consume alcohol while driving a vehicle or attempting to put a vehicle in motion.

I understand that some amendments are to be moved in relation to the bill, namely, changing the actual name of the bill, as well as seeking to implement a penalty for the offence and the expiation fees in regulation and not have it stipulated in the bill in legislation as such.

The bill seeks to inhibit the consumption of alcohol while driving or attempting to drive a vehicle. Currently, South Australia and Victoria are the only two jurisdictions in Australia that do not have a similar ban in place. Western Australia has more extensive and tougher provisions than those proposed in this bill.

In Western Australia a person is banned from consuming alcohol or liquor on any road in the metropolitan area, including in a parked car or moving vehicle. In New South Wales a person must not consume alcohol while driving. This offence will attract a fine of $243 and three demerit points. In Queensland a driver of a vehicle must not drink liquor while driving. The maximum penalty is $1,500 and attracts a fine of $300, or $100 if a person is riding a push bike whilst consuming alcohol.

Tasmania has the most severe penalties in relation to this issue. No person shall drive a vehicle while he or she is consuming intoxicating liquor, and passengers in vehicles are banned from consuming alcohol. That is significantly different from what this bill proposes. The penalties for those offences can be up to a $1,200 fine or imprisonment for up to six months, plus disqualification of their licence for up to three years. So, obviously, Tasmania has the most severe conditions and penalties in relation to this issue. As I said previously, the bill will bring South Australia into line with most of Australia, with Victoria apparently to move shortly to rectify that state's situation in relation to this.

The intention of this bill is to make clear to the public that there is a distinction between driving and consuming alcohol. In relation to our position on this bill, the state Liberals undertook some consultation and sought advice from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at the University of Adelaide.

Debate adjourned.