STATUTES AMENDMENT (DRUG DRIVING) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:36): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993; the Motor Vehicles Act 1959; the Road Traffic Act 1961; and the Summary Offences Act 1953.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill that I have wanted to move for some time and the data obtained under freedom of information request over the winter break has demonstrated the merit, in my opinion, of reform with respect to drug-driving. The data showed overwhelmingly that South Australia Police are detecting more people with illicit drugs in their system than alcohol—and that is when they have enough accredited testers out on the road conducting tests and sufficient budget. I commend the South Australia Police for their blitzes on this issue and they also reinforce how many more (when they can test for drugs) are being found to be on illicit drugs.

The tests, we also have to remember, are not testing for all illicit drugs at this stage due to technology requirements that are still to be improved. At the moment the tests are only for things like cannabis and amphetamines that are more common and detectable. The tests are also not testing for abuse of legal drugs that can impair driving ability, so there is good reason to be concerned and for parliament to act on this issue.

One of the key changes under this bill is to remove the ability to expiate drug-driving offences. That is simply out of step with community expectations these days, given the prevalence rates on drug-driving. Another key change is to create a right to inspect a vehicle if a person tests positive for drugs. South Australia Police are often able to detect significant drug activities when they search vehicles, but the requirement for them to have a reasonable suspicion for conducting a search is not in keeping with community standards on this issue.

If a person has tested positive for cannabis or methamphetamine, it is reasonable to assume that that person may have more illicit drugs in the car. Family First does not care about claims of personal use or dealing—if there are drugs in the car they should be found and seized. This reform codifies the reasonableness of assuming that there might be drugs in the car.

Lastly, penalties are raised under this bill to be closer to drink-driving penalties. If there is a higher incidence rate of drug-driving than drink-driving on our roads, then this is an appropriate step. In particular, the financial penalties applicable are elevated to the equivalent of 0.15 or over in drink-driving law, since we cannot be sure how drug affected a person is and the drugs we are talking about are illicit substances in any case.

Honourable members are welcome to amend this bill if they wish and can find the support of the council. We need reform in this area, and I urge honourable members to think about the safety of themselves and their loved ones on the road and the risk posed to them by drug drivers. If it is okay for the Motor Accident Commission to run ads comparing drink driving to a pilot snorting coke, a surgeon smoking a bong or a bus driver throwing up before starting his shift, it is okay for this parliament to take appropriate action to tackle the failure by drivers to accept the message being put to them in advertising by the MAC.

I would like to place a couple of other points on the public record. When I was a member of the lower house, not only in my time as police minister but after as shadow minister, I was a strong supporter of real reforms around drug driving. At that time, Ivan Venning, the member for Schubert, had a private member's bill. The technology was in its infancy, and the Rann government initially said that it would wait to see what happened interstate, as Victoria, I think it was, had already introduced drug driving testing.

When we debated the drug driving bill some time after it was introduced into the parliament, I expressed my concern about many of the issues I have tabled in this bill. There was some reluctance on the part of some government members to allow police to automatically search vehicles. I think that is a soft approach. We now have enough evidence to show just how concerning it is in relation to the number of people driving with illicit drugs. One of the reasons they are driving with illicit drugs in their system is that they know their chances of being tested and caught are not as great as their being caught drink driving.

I suggest that a good government initiative would be to have a strategy where, by 2014, all police officers undertaking traffic and general duties are trained to be able to drug test. I accept and acknowledge that drug testing is much more expensive than random breath testing. However, if you have ever spoken to anyone who has lost a loved one in an accident as a result of someone being totally incapacitated because of illicit drugs in their system, you would ask yourself: at what cost is life?

There was an incident on the South-Eastern Freeway only a few weeks ago, where SAPOL pulled over a car, which was heading towards Victoria, for something that was unrelated to illicit drugs only to discover a boot full of an enormous amount of cannabis which was heading for the interstate market. It is not always the case, but often people who are drug driving are also involved in trafficking. I believe it is should be mandatory that, once you test positive for illicit drugs, the police do not have to have reasonable excuse to assume that there may be illicit drugs in the car; we should give police the automatic right to search those cars. If that were the case, I would suggest that there would be fewer illicit drugs on our streets and there would be a lot less trafficking than we are seeing now, particularly to young people.

Finally, I want to say that, for further information, I invite honourable members to read my comments in the Sunday Mail of 4 September or in The Border Watch, Eyre Peninsula Tribune, and The Leader in the Barossa and other places. Members could contact my office for further detailed information on just how concerning it is to see the significant number of people who, when drug tested by police, are proving to be driving with illicit drugs in their system.

Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more young people being indoctrinated in the use of illicit drugs. We know from science and research that cannabis is a gateway drug. You have only to look at information about ambulances carrying drug users to hospital because of a drug overdose and the like to see that most of them have a poly cocktail of drugs in their blood. We also know that, the younger you are when you start consuming illicit drugs, the higher the risk of permanent damage or death.

I think it is time we were serious about this problem. We have the technology now, and I believe we have a duty of care to ensure that we do everything we can to stop illicit drug use and particularly people driving under the influence of illicit drugs.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.