Bills

Road Traffic (Drug Testing) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The legislation I bring in today mirrors some work done last year as part of the then minister's Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill. That particular bill, ultimately successful, had a fairly tortuous passage through the houses, during which time some good measures, including the one I will outline today, were eventually dropped from the bill, I understand to allow for the passage of the other measures before the parliament was prorogued ahead of the March election.

This legislation is fairly simple on the surface. It allows police to search a person or their vehicle for illicit substances if they return a positive roadside drug test. That is, it explicitly allows police to exercise their search and seizure powers under the Controlled Substances Act. Currently, of course, the Road Traffic Act explicitly prevents police from using a positive test as a reason to conduct a search. The bill also allows the results of such a test and subsequent search to be used as evidence in proceedings against the Controlled Substances Act.

This particular measure did not form part of the first iteration of the Statute Amendments (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill, as introduced by the previous minister. It was initially mooted by the Australian Conservatives, or Family First—whichever name they were known by then—by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. However, I think it is generally agreed that that member's original amendment was far too prescriptive. It did compel the police to act under certain circumstances. It essentially said that if the person tested positive for drugs on the roadside, then the police must search the person and vehicle. There was, I think, legitimate criticism of this type of compulsion from the then shadow minister.

The then government subsequently sought to introduce an amendment, which, rather than give the police new powers, would allow the police to exercise their existing powers under the Controlled Substances Act, currently prohibited by the Road Traffic Act. It is that amendment that was eventually lost, I understand, after negotiations to ensure the passage of the other important measures in the original bill, which is—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: I do not wish to interrupt the flow of the member's presentation but he is, of course, prohibited from reflecting on the vote in another place.

The SPEAKER: He is.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think he is getting too close to suggesting that, at this point.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully. Continue.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will sum up the bill then, sir. First of all, it allows the results of positive roadside drug tests to be used in forming a reasonable suspicion, which can then be used as grounds for the exercise of a search power without the need for a warrant; that is, a search power already established under the Controlled Substances Act. Removing Schedule 1 clause 8(2)(b) will go some way to removing legal challenges to roadside searches and the results of those searches.

Secondly, it positively sanctions the use of the results of the roadside drug tests in evidence in proceedings against the Controlled Substances Act by inserting an explicit reference to the Controlled Substances Act in clause 8(2)(a)(i).

This bill is a simple measure to give police another tool to combat the spread of drugs, particularly ice, in our community. It is important to note that these changes reflect recommendations made by the Ice Taskforce and were supported at the time by police. Labor, on this side of the house, wants to give police all the tools they need to keep the community safe. I hope that the government has changed its mind on this issue and that the house will come together to support this measure. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.