HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO—ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1815.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:42): I am pleased to advise the house that my comments should not take very much longer. Members may recall that, earlier, I was a bit lost in terms of my own notes on the bill and I could not find the relevant section but, happily, over the break, I have managed to locate the section, because my notes said that I found subclause (4) of clause 20 of the bill confusing.

I will just read subclause (4). It deals with inserting a new subsection into section 81AB of the Motor Vehicles Act, and states:

(3b) If a licence is not issued subject to the alcohol interlock scheme conditions but the application for the licence was made following a period of disqualification ordered by a court for a serious drink driving offence committed on or after the commencement of section 81E, the conditions imposed by subsection (1) are effective for—

(a) a period equal to the period of disqualification for the offence ordered by the court; or

(b) a period of 3 years,

whichever is the lesser.

I am sure that the minister understood that instantly and will be able to explain to me what it means, but I want to put to him what I think it means. In order to do that, I need to go to existing section 81AB which, basically, in subsection (1) provides—and I am summarising a little—that where a person applies for a driver's licence after being disqualified because of a drink driving offence, or by order of the court in any other state or territory, when they get their licence back, there are certain conditions that automatically apply.

Those conditions are, firstly, a condition that the holder of the licence must carry the licence at all times while driving a motor vehicle pursuant to the licence; secondly, a condition that the holder must not drive a motor vehicle or attempt to put a vehicle in motion on a road whilst they have the prescribed concentration of alcohol present in his or her blood or the prescribed drug present in his or her blood or oral fluid; and, thirdly, a condition that they must not incur two or more demerit points.

It is almost like going back to probationary licence conditions, where they can potentially lose one demerit point, but as soon as they reach two they are in breach of that condition; or, if they drive with any alcohol or drug in their system they are then in breach of the condition, and, if they do not carry their licence with them at all times while they are driving they are in breach of that condition.

So we know that that is what 81AB provides. The new inserted provision provides that, if a licence is not issued subject to the alcohol interlock scheme conditions but the application for the licence is made following a period of disqualification ordered by a court for a serious drink-driving offence committed after these new provisions about serious drink driving offences come in, the conditions imposed by subsection (1) (that is, the three conditions that I just read out) are effective for a period equal to the period of disqualification or for a period of three years, whichever is the lesser. I just want to clarify. I found that very confusing to read, but I think I have deciphered it, and I want to get confirmation from the minister in due course.

Don't I like the sound of saying 'the minister' and looking across at the member for West Torrens and seeing—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Don't we all.

Mrs REDMOND: And I am sure I don't like it nearly as much as the member for West Torrens enjoys my reference—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It's better than chocolate.

Mrs REDMOND: Better than chocolate, but is it better than—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I'm married, I wouldn't know.

Mrs REDMOND: Just married. I want to be clear on this, and, first of all, it provides: 'if a licence is not issued subject to the alcohol interlock scheme', which I assume means that it is a licence issued not subject to the alcohol interlock scheme. I am interested in the placement of that, but you know how the Attorney and I go on about the placement of words in legislation. However, you have a licence not issued subject to the alcohol interlock scheme but after this has come into play.

So, for some reason they have not got the alcohol interlock scheme even though they have a conviction and even though they have a period of disqualification. But, in essence, what it will mean in practice is that, as well as having to serve that period of disqualification, they are, effectively, back on their P plates for either the period equivalent to their period of disqualification, which they have already served, or three years, whichever is the lesser. Therefore, if their period of disqualification is more than three years, they are on their P plates, effectively, for three years. I do not know whether they call them P plates, but that is the effect of the conditions.

So, I want to clarify this and get the minister's confirmation that my understanding of that section is correct. I cannot wait for the committee stage of this bill so that I can hear the minister's explanation of what I perceive to be the complexities of the way this operates.

As said, I do not have a great deal more. I have already mentioned the fact that the Registrar must be satisfied that prescribed circumstances exist in order to allow someone who would otherwise be subject to the alcohol interlock scheme to avoid having a licence that is subject to that scheme. Indeed, I wonder if that is when the particular section I have just been talking about comes into play.

I want to briefly cover a couple of matters. Essentially, clause 24, as I was saying before the lunch break, sets out the details of how it works. Basically, it provides that you have to be convicted of a serious drink-driving offence. A serious drink-driving offence is anything more than a conviction of a category 1, which is .05 to .08, or a conviction of a category 2 offence, which is .08 to .05 if it is only a first offence. However, if you commit a second offence within five years, that becomes a serious drink-driving offence, and you are then subject to the alcohol interlock scheme, as I understand it.

I understand all that. Once you have had that, you have to serve the extra time (up to three years), after which you can apply for your licence back, provided that you have not breached any of the conditions (either the conditions already in the act or the conditions relating to the alcohol interlock scheme), and you can obtain an unrestricted licence.

In order for the whole scheme to apply, there has to be a nominated vehicle, but I could not see a provision in the bill for variation of that. It seems to me that it would be reasonably likely that, at sometime in the future, someone who is subject to one of these will sell a car, buy a new car or whatever. The legislation contains some provisions relating to cancelling and so on, but it struck me as odd that there was no specific provision to deal with the changeover of a car, so I invite the minister to comment on that.

No doubt, the minister's advisers are having all sorts of fun trying to keep up with the questions that have to be answered, but they can take comfort from the fact that, once upon a time, it was my job to try to keep up with the questions being asked so that I could write answers for the minister. Before leaving clause 24, new section 81E sets out, amongst other things, what constitutes a serious drink-driving offence. New section 81E(3) provides:

…if a person who applies for a licence—

(a) has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence by order of a court on conviction for a serious drink driving offence committed on or after the commencement of this section; and

(b) the person has not held a licence since the end of the period of disqualification,

a licence issued to the person will be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme…

I seek the minister's clarification on this point. I assume that the new section is intended to get over the potential problem of someone today, for instance, who has served their disqualification period and who has applied for their new licence but is still within the five years once the new legislation comes in. I want clarification that that is, indeed, the correct reading of the new section.

The contravention provision seems quite straightforward, and it is found in new section 81H, which provides that the holder of a licence must obey and not contravene any of the conditions. New subsection (2) provides:

A person must not assist the holder of a licence subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions to operate a motor vehicle, or interfere with an alcohol interlock, in contravention of any of the conditions.

The maximum penalty is $2,500, and I assume that its intention relates to someone who has an alcohol interlock device fitted to their car and who may invite a family member or a friend (such as me, for example, as I do not drink) to blow into the relevant piece of equipment so that it reads zero, thus enabling them to circumvent the alcohol interlock device, or lend them a car that does not have an alcohol interlock device. However, I assume that, in order for an offence to be committed, the person would have to know that the person to whom they are lending their car is subject to conditions.

Obviously, if someone asks you to blow into the little interlock device you are likely to be alive to the issue of their not being absolutely kosher. However, if for instance it was just a friend who says, 'Hey, can I borrow the keys to the car? I need to go down to the shops,' does the burden of proof change in any way, or does the burden of proof rest on the person who has provided that assistance, albeit unwittingly, to prove that they did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that the person was subject to an alcohol interlock device?

A couple of other things I want to mention. The question of the differential costs I mentioned in my opening comments. Schedule 6, section 8, which appears in the bill at page 42, concerns financial assistance for use of alcohol interlocks. I indicated that the Liberal Party expressed some concern early on, because it seemed that the government's intention was to have a sort of graduated system of payment so that the individuals obliged to put these items into their car for the nominated period would have to pay varying amounts depending on their financial capacity to pay.

As I already said, that seems to be fraught with difficulty. The bill appears to provide that there will be a flat fee; however, if you are in a circumstance where you can show that you are so impecunious that you simply cannot afford it and it would be an unreasonable hardship, you can apply for a concession on the cost and some form of financial assistance. The wording is 'to obtain loans or other assistance (subject to a means test and conditions determined by the Minister) for the purpose of gaining the use of alcohol interlocks'.

I do not have any difficulty with that concept, but I would be interested if the minister could expand upon what loans might be put in place, because normally I would expect to see other assistance—in the form of concessions, for instance—so there might simply be a reduction in the amount that is payable. I understand that the system will operate through private enterprise, so there will be at least two private firms engaged to put these devices into the relevant vehicles. I am pleased to see that the minister is much relieved by the arrival of certain advisers.

So, you have the private enterprise aspect and, clearly, private enterprise cannot be expected to meet the cost of the fact that someone cannot afford to put the thing in. So, I can understand that we will have to come to some sort of mechanism whereby a person can access the interlock scheme and the private firm that is putting it into the car gets its normal pay regardless of the financial capacity of the person. At the end of the day, I expect therefore that the government will provide some sort of subsidy or something like that. When I saw the word 'loans' there, I thought it was an unusual thing to put into legislation, and I would be interested in an explanation as to what the minister is contemplating in terms of loans.

The second to last point I want to address is the amendment of the Road Traffic Act in clause 29 of the bill, and I make the comment that what that does is make it clear that prior offences are those involving driving with either alcohol or drugs in your system, so it makes it clear that both of those are now captured by the concept of prior offences.

Lastly, I want to refer to clause 37, and I apologise that I did not have time to do any further investigation into this. When I looked at clause 37, which is an amendment of section 47J of the Road Traffic Act, it talks about deleting paragraph (a) and substituting a new paragraph (a) that says 'is convicted of a prescribed offence that was committed in metropolitan Adelaide' before the prescribed day, and I was curious for an explanation because I was not aware until I read that that there was any differentiation under the Road Traffic Act for offences committed within the metropolitan area, as opposed to offences committed outside the metropolitan area. So I invite the minister to comment on that, also.

With those words, I conclude my remarks on the bill. As I said, as a former member of the Road Safety Advisory Council of this state, I welcome any initiatives that may reduce either drink driving or drug driving in our community, because the loss of life and damage that reverberates from loss of life and significant injury, not just for the person involved but also their family, friends and the wider community, is quite extraordinary. I sometimes note that on occasion we have been known to talk a lot about the impact of gambling on our community but, in fact, the statistics are fairly similar, and I confirmed this fairly recently.

In terms of percentage, the number of people impacted by road accidents roughly equates. For example, if 2 per cent of the population have a significant gambling problem, it is about 2 per cent of the population that is significantly impacted by road trauma. So, it is significant, and for some reason we seem to be quietly accepting of losing in excess of 120 lives on the roads of this state last year and the various terrible traumas that people sustained in accidents throughout the state. Of course, part of the reduction of our road toll is because we are better at saving lives, so sometimes it is not that we have not had the accidents but that people survive them now.

So it is a significant issue for our community. I welcome the initiative. I thank the member for Schubert for his input early in trying to make this parliament address the issue of drug driving in the first place, and I wish the bill good passage through this house, since it has already been through the other place.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:02): I formally congratulate the member for West Torrens on his elevation to the ministry. It is long overdue.

I rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Alcohol and Drugs) Bill. The issue of drink driving and driving under the influence of drugs (and alcohol is a drug but it is a legal drug) is a very serious issue for every member in this place and should be for every member of the community yet, every day, we see more reports of people being pulled over for drink driving or driving under the influence of drugs. I am continually amazed at the stupidity of the many people who get caught at well over the blood concentration limit for alcohol and with the presence of illicit drugs in their system.

I congratulate the member for Schubert for having been on the case of drug driving for many years now and trying to raise the awareness of this parliament and the population generally to the dangers of drug driving, and it is good to see that the government did take note, and this legislation in its initial form was put before both houses and passed, and now it is being reviewed. There is a real need to keep reviewing this sort of legislation to ensure it is working properly because if the motorists who are flouting the system and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are able to get away on a technicality or through some loophole and keep driving and keep endangering not only themselves but, more importantly, innocent road users, we need to ensure the legislation is looked at and improved so that everyone is protected, including the idiots who put themselves in danger.

The shadow minister has made a number of remarks about the bill and I am not going to go into the detail of it. I am sure her questions will be answered by the new minister. I want to emphasise the fact that my constituents in the electorate of Morphett are aware of this issue. They are excellent people to represent in this place and, certainly, while there are some issues with the excessive consumption of alcohol at some of the venues in Glenelg, I am sure the owners of those venues are doing their utmost to ensure those people are not endangering their own safety. This legislation will at least make sure that anyone who does indulge in excessive alcohol or drug use and then decides to drive a boat—or even go water-skiing—will be caught up, because it is a very serious issue. I look forward to its passage through the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:05): I also rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Alcohol and Drugs) Bill. I commend the member for Schubert on his untiring efforts to have drivers tested for drugs. Much carnage is caused on the roads today and, if we can limit that by taking the drug drivers and the drink drivers off the road, the world, and also the state, will be a better place.

This bill combines two initiatives. It implements the government's response to the review of the first year of the operation of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2005 and, as has been mentioned, introduces a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme. The Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2005 came into operation on 1 July 2006 and empowered South Australian police to conduct roadside saliva testing for the prescribed drugs of THC, methylamphetamine and MDMA. The government only progressed that legislation and subsequently added MDMA on the insistence of the Liberal opposition. The amendment act required the legislation to be reviewed after the first year of operation and a report to be laid before both houses of parliament.

The report indicated the operation of the act had been effective but suggested a number of improvements in the drug driving provisions, some of which included amendments to the drink driving provisions. The government has implemented several elements not requiring amendments to the principal legislation, and that includes increasing expiation fees and demerit points for drink and drug driving offences, which came into operation on 1 July 2008, as well as the testing of blood samples of all drivers and riders for prescribed drugs, which commenced on 1 July 2008. I note that the disqualification periods for second, third and subsequent category 1 offences have been increased to six, nine and 12 months to provide for appropriately escalating penalties. Other changes include:

counting prior alcohol-related driving offences;

lowering the age of all people attending or admitted to a hospital as a result of a vessel or motor vehicle accident from whom a blood sample must be taken from over 14 to over 10 years of age; and

requiring a drug dependency assessment in cases where a person has a second drug offence within a five year period, and if found to be dependent have the licence cancelled until further assessment indicates the person is no longer dependent.

A raft of other changes are included.

I will make some comment about the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme. This voluntary scheme under the Liberal government came into effect in October 2001. I note that the Road Safety Advisory Council has recommended that the interlock scheme be made mandatory for serious and repeat drink driving offenders.

This bill provides that drivers convicted by a court of a serious drink driving offence will, first, be eligible to apply for a driver's licence with alcohol interlock scheme conditions after having served the full period of the court imposed licence disqualification, provided there is no other barrier to the issue of a licence; and, secondly, they will be eligible to apply for a driver's licence without alcohol interlock scheme conditions after having had an alcohol interlock device installed for the same length of time as the disqualification period up to a maximum of three years.

I note that the Liberal Party is supporting the bill. As I said earlier, I certainly support legislation such as this. My property is dissected by the Dukes Highway with thousands of vehicles going past every day. I can go over periods in my life, and not all the accidents I have witnessed or have come across soon after they have happened have been caused by drugs or alcohol. However, you only have to see a semi-trailer that has sideswiped a B-double and everything has gone up in flames to see what happens when people are either not rested or they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Nearly every time there are fatal consequences, and sometimes multiple fatalities occur. I certainly commend the local CFS and all CFS, ambulance and SES personnel who come out to these accidents and witness some horrific scenes. As I said, when vehicles come together—it could be at a combined speed of up to 230 km/h and sometimes more—it is one heck of a mess. I commend the bill and I hope it has a good passage through parliament.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:11): I have some passion for this subject, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the other members who have already spoken with reference to me and my campaign in relation drink and drug driving over many years. This bill aims to alter the laws dealing with the testing of and the penalties for drivers who are affected by alcohol and drugs. As crash data shows, people continue to take drugs and drink alcohol (or both) above the level of .05 BAC and drive. That was always my concern. Drink driving was bad enough, drugs are worse, but when you put the two together you have a very potent mix.

This bill combines two initiatives: implementing the government's response to the review in the first year of the operation of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2005, and introducing a mandatory alcohol interlock system. This legislation is largely aimed at repeat offenders. A previous minister, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, first introduced these. We thought they were just toys when they were first talked about, but certainly they have now become a critical part of dealing with a problem.

As you know, madam, I have been a long-time campaigner against drug driving. In 2003 (a long time ago now), I first called on the state Rann Labor government to examine the feasibility of adopting random drug testing of drivers and the feasibility of implementing such testing in conjunction with random breath testing for excessive alcohol consumption.

I then introduced subsequent bills which would legislate for random drug testing to be introduced in South Australia. However, the government did not adopt such legislation until late 2005, even though the Victorians had already introduced it and were making it work; and various universities had done a lot of work on it, too. It was happening. We could have been the second cab off the rank on this but, as it turned out, we were not: we were the fourth or the fifth and people lost their lives in the interim.

I was always very concerned. I reckon that when a person causes a death some of these statistics ought to be known, for example, whether the driver who caused the accident was under the influence of a drug or alcohol. I do believe that should be published so that we know, because we know that the statistics are very damning indeed.

The Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill 2005 then came into effect on 1 July 2006 and allowed for SAPOL to conduct roadside saliva testing for methamphetamines, THC and MDMA. The amendment bill required the legislation to be reviewed after its first year of operation. The report was to be presented to both houses of this parliament; Mr Bill Cossey was commissioned to prepare that report, and this bill is the result of his recommendations. Equal to my disappointment that the state Rann Labor government took so long to introduce drug driving legislation in the first place, is the fact that it has taken so long for the review and its recommendations to be acted on by the government and for this legislation to come before the house.

The most significant change to the legislation is that it introduces a three month licence disqualification for the first conviction by a court for a person driving with a prescribed drug in their system, with a similar charge for a category 1 driving offence, which is someone who is above .049 BAC and lower than .08. At this point I want to be very controversial. I am a little concerned at this because .049 is not very high: it is on the edge of impairing one's coordination.

I have now been using a police type breathalyser machine for over two years. After a while, you do get to know where your impairment is in relation to the reading. Luckily, I have a wife who does not drink at all. Over a period of time, I have been able to judge my own levels against my ability to drive a motor car. You will never ever get me for drink driving, I can assure you, because—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What about speeding?

Mr VENNING: That is a different matter. You are allowed to have one sin: you cannot have two. That is a different issue and I am happy to address that, too, and we will. I raise my concern in relation to the .049. I can be .047 and can almost guess that I am pretty safe. I have got it pretty close to that. Looking at this matter, I do agree that there should be loss of licence at less than .08, but I still believe that .049 is on the edge for some people, and you would not know. I would have considered a mark perhaps halfway between them, say, .065; that would have been a good way to go and then, if it does not work, drop it to .05, if you wish. I do not have a problem with .05 but, for some people who do not have machines, it is very difficult to tell, and that is the biggest crime, I think. I believe that it ought to be compulsory for all those large institutions selling alcohol to provide their patrons with a machine so that at least they have an idea before they get into their car whether they have—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: What's their responsibility?

Mr VENNING: The member for Davenport says, 'What's their responsibility?' How do they know? I know because I own a machine which I bought from the Queensland police. Our local police would not sell me this machine, I got it from the Queensland police, and I find it invaluable. It cost a lot of money, but to me in my job and in the seat that I represent it was worth it. I know that the local newspaper, the Barossa and Light Herald, will be reading this. They read Hansard regularly and they do report on activity, and Mr Nathan Gogoll, who is the reporter, will be reading this. It is a very big issue in the Barossa, with a group called 'Barossa's Most Wanted'. I have said at times that we have had trouble with this young gang of hooligans. We have just introduced these dry zones across the Barossa because of hooligans and outlandish behaviour. It is a big issue.

I believe that these machines ought to be available to people, particularly the people who do not know. You can buy the little 'el cheapo' machine in various commercial outlets, and I have to say that, generally, they are a waste of money. They give you some idea, but if you are going to the margin, I tell you it is a waste of time. It is not worth putting your licence, your passengers or your life at risk. Invest in a decent one, otherwise do not drink, or have another person drive the car.

Another change will ensure that prior alcohol related driving offences are counted in the determination of whether a drug driving offence is a subsequent offence and vice versa. This is logical, and this is what I tried to do in the first place: I said that you should put them together, there is no difference. It is a logical amendment as both offences put the safety of road users in danger and, as such, should not be considered independently of each other. I invite members to check Hansard: I said exactly that in 2003. I am surprised that this was not included in the original act.

The second part of the bill seeks to introduce a mandatory alcohol interlock system. As I said earlier, alcohol interlocks are fitted to vehicles to prevent their being driven if the person's BAC is above the designated concentration for that person. As these devices are fitted for serious drink driving offences, the prescribed amount of alcohol is usually set at zero. In 2001, under previous minister Laidlaw in the Liberal government, South Australia was the first Australian state to introduce a voluntary alcohol interlock scheme for serious drink driving offenders. The scheme has continued on a voluntary basis until now.

This bill will provide a legislative framework so that, in future, drivers convicted of a serious driving offence will have to serve the full period of a licence disqualification determined by the courts, and then have the alcohol interlock system fitted to their vehicle for the same period thereafter. I understand that the government has proposed some amendments in relation to clarifying definitions and removing references to the voluntary alcohol interlock system, as this has been replaced with a mandatory system. We on this side of the house have no problems with these changes. Of course, I do highlight the problem today (as I did many years ago) about these machines; that is, the ability for a driver who has not been drinking to blow into it and then to switch over and drive the vehicle. We now have random tests whereby the machine can beep at any time; if you do not blow into it and get a reading, it will stop, anyway. That was a very good technological change and an improvement. So, I think we are doing a lot.

We have come a long way in terms of our acceptance of this problem in saying, 'Well, hang on. We all enjoy a drink, but we have to be responsible.' The bill will strengthen the legislation that is in place by penalising drug and/or drink drivers who continue to get behind the wheel of a car under the influence and put other road users in danger. Any legislation that helps to make our roads safer can only be a positive for South Australia.

I am very passionate about this subject. It is blatantly wrong that our loved ones—my wife, my children and grandchildren—and ourselves are placed at risk by idiots who drive up the road so badly impaired that they kill themselves and innocent people. None of us should say that we oppose measures such as this because, after all, we all transgress at times, but we know what the rules are and the penalty has to be steep enough to make sure that we do not ever consider driving a motor car if we have had a drink—and I do not believe that people should take drugs at any time. I certainly support this bill. It has taken a while, but I think we will eventually get there.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (16:23): The Liberal opposition supports the bill, but it is very evident that people living in rural, regional and remote South Australia will again be disadvantaged. Drivers who are disqualified because of driving infringements are severely disadvantaged the further away they live from the Adelaide metropolis. The necessary assessment procedure in a drug and alcohol clinic prior to applying for a renewal of a driver's licence is only available in Adelaide. A constituent in my electorate was advised in 2008 that an appointment at the clinic was not available until 2010, which is totally unacceptable. What are people to do in the meantime to hold down a job and live their lives, particularly when they live in remote country areas?

The licensing of a private clinic at Mile End to undertake these assessments to overcome the backlog again discriminates against those who can least afford it. I ask that at least one other assessment clinic, possibly at Port Augusta, be set up to alleviate the unconscionably long waiting time at the Adelaide assessment clinic and to better serve rural and regional South Australia.

I commend the former Liberal government for making South Australia the first Australian state to introduce a voluntary interlock system for serious drink driving offences in October 2001. The Liberal opposition supports the recommendation of the Road Safety Advisory Council that the scheme be mandatory for serious and repeat drink driving offences. However, for a law to be applied justly, all members of the public must be treated fairly and equally. Already country drivers who are disqualified are severely disadvantaged compared to their city counterparts. There is no public transport system—which, again, is supported financially for city residents by all South Australians through the taxes and charges that are levied on all of us. In many country towns no bus, train or plane services are available.

It has been stated by Labor sources over the years that it would not matter if all people moved from the country to the capital cities to live. That attitude displays a colossal ignorance of the revenue foundation on which our nation and our society is based. It also tries to manipulate people to fit one mould, ignoring the fact that some people psychologically cannot live in the city. This is attested to by some of our most talented indigenous Australian rules footballers, who give away playing at the top level because they cannot abide city lifestyles.

I appreciate the Premier's accepting the resignation of the Minister for Road Safety in another place. It took repeated contacts with the former minister over some months to elicit a reply to the questions which my constituent mentioned previously needed answers (incidentally, this constituent moved to the country from the city for health reasons). One of the measures of a just and democratic society is the equal application of the law and equal access to justice for all citizens. Our regional people must be considered when our laws and their application are being considered, and I ask that they are considered in this bill, with a view to reducing the impact caused by isolation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:26): I thank all members for their contributions and their kind words about my elevation to the ministry. I pay tribute to the Hon. Carmel Zollo, who introduced this bill in the upper house, for her tireless work in road safety and her devotion to her portfolio areas. She has been a close friend of mine for a long time, and I wish her well in her future endeavours. I am sure she will be a great advocate for the people of South Australia in the upper house for as long as she wishes to remain there.

I will make a few brief points before proceeding to the summary. I completely reject the notion that the government is in any way somehow disadvantaging rural people by bringing in this scheme. I remind the member for Flinders that the person who first called for this scheme was a rural member. I think that the member for Flinders somehow takes her passion for her constituents to a point where she feels that none of us is listening. I can assure her that the government is listening. One thing that I would hate is to see us reach a point where we say it is okay to drink drive in the country because of rural isolation.

An honourable member: She didn't say that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know she was not saying that, but it is very hard to govern an entire state and bring in laws that provide equal protection (which is what I think she was trying to say) for every citizen of the state, in terms of the application of the law. However, the government is not in any way deliberately trying to isolate rural residents or her constituents with this scheme. We are trying to save lives, because one death on our roads is one too many. I never want to see the day when any government or minister (and I am sure the member for Heysen, after her time on the Road Safety Advisory Council, would agree) would say, 'Well, we've reached 100 a year; that's enough. That's the best we can do.' It is not. I will not say that we can achieve it, but I want to aim for zero tolerance of deaths on our roads, because those deaths are meaningless and they are so wasted.

I want to respond to some of the questions and concerns raised by honourable members earlier in the debate, and I will address their points in turn. However, before I do so, I want to take the opportunity to clarify concerns raised in another place in relation to the offence of assisting the holder of a licence subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions to operate a motor vehicle in contravention of any of the conditions. The concern was whether the offence would apply to a person who was assisting the interlock licence holder to drive a vehicle other than the vehicle fitted with an interlock device and whether a person might inadvertently commit this offence.

I am advised that the offence does apply to the use of any vehicle, but that it requires a mental element. The onus would be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew that the person was subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions or was reckless as to whether the person's licence was subject to those conditions. Based on this advice—and I agree with the advice—no amendment to this offence is necessary because if the offence is inadvertent, the required intention will be absent. So, if you do not do it on purpose, if you do not know that the person is subject to these conditions, then you will not be prosecuted.

It is also appropriate for the offence to apply to any vehicle because otherwise it would not be an offence for a person to permit the interlock licence holder to use another vehicle even though the person knew it was against the conditions. This would allow a person to knowingly circumvent the scheme.

I now turn to the concerns of the members of this house. One comment was that the three month disqualification period for a first drug driving conviction is being introduced to bring it into line with a first conviction for a category 1 BAC (blood alcohol content) offence. I inform the member that the government is actually introducing a three month disqualification period for first convictions for both drug and drink driving offences.

The Road Traffic Act currently provides that the first offence for both prescribed drug and category 1 BAC be dealt via an expiation notice. Subsequent offences incur more substantial penalties as determined by the court. A first offence that is expiated, however, is not recorded as a conviction, so a court must treat a second-time offender not as a repeat offender but as a first-time offender and, therefore, no disqualification would be imposed. This amendment will remove this anomaly and, in doing so, increase the deterrent effect of the provision. This will still provide the opportunity for a person to expiate the first incident and will ensure a period of court-imposed disqualification when the second incident is brought to court.

It was queried whether interlock device will be triggered by the presence of any alcohol at all in a person's breath. I am advised that the devices can be set to register any level of alcohol in the breath. They are quite sophisticated machines, but generally, as is currently the case under the voluntary scheme, the devices are not triggered by readings less than 0.02 grams in 100 millilitres of blood. This is to allow for readings caused by taking medicines such as cough mixture, or even eating ice-cream. I am not sure what ice-cream has alcohol in it, but I might find out.

The SPEAKER: Rum and raisin.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Rum and raisin, yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is one of the provider's conditions on the use that a person not eat or drink anything within 15 minutes before using the device but sometimes traces of matter that will trigger the device will remain after that time, so a small tolerance is generally employed. This is in line with standard enforcement practices both in this state and other jurisdictions.

It was queried which people will be eligible for concessions on the scheme and how their qualifications will be tested. Concessions will be available for the holders of health care and pension cards, Veterans' Affairs gold cards (EDA, totally and permanently disabled and war widows only.)

Consistent with the general availability of concessions in South Australia, the range of concessions was decided under the advice of the Department of Families and Communities. The department or the interlock provider will not assess a person's ability to qualify for the concession. It will depend on the person's ability to qualify for the concession card in the first place.

I turn to the query about why unlicensed driving after a drug driving conviction does not attract the same penalty. This new offence was introduced as part of an interlock scheme. It is aimed at those people who are disqualified for a serious drink driving offence and go on driving unlicensed before having gone onto the interlock scheme. It is anticipated, unfortunately, that some people will continue to flaunt the law and decide that the legitimate route of regaining an unconditional licence is all too hard. That is why the penalty—

Mrs Redmond: I think you mean 'flout' the law.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What did I say?

Mrs Redmond: Flaunt.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, flout.

Mr Kenyon: She's been taking it for years from Atkinson. She's giving it back.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, Mick Atkinson. The penalties for this particular offence have been increased over and above that of unlicensed drivers in other situations. In answer to the member's query, the offence of driving unlicensed after a drug conviction will be dealt with under the existing provisions, that is, section 74(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

If there were an equivalent to the interlock scheme for drug drivers, including drug drivers in this more serious offence would be appropriate because it would be a deliberate violation of a legitimate way of regaining an unconditional licence. However, the technology is not available for this as yet. I think we will go into committee, rather than my going through long, detailed answers, because we can get some faster answers for the shadow minister. I thank the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mrs REDMOND: I just have one question here, and it may be something that the minister was just touching on a moment ago. I just want to get clarity about it. It is simply that the clause in question talks about duty to hold a licence or learner's permit and it says that, subject to this act, if a person drives a motor vehicle on a road and the person has, as a consequence of being convicted of a serious drink driving offence been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence and the person has no licence elsewhere, in essence, the person is guilty of an offence. I was just curious about why that particular clause only refers to serious drink driving offences and not to drug driving offences. I apologise that I did not have time to go looking to see whether there is an equivalent clause to that somewhere else.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a question of technology, I am told. I am advised that the problem is that the machines are unable to detect drugs. Therefore, we need a provision for people to legitimately go through a route to attempt to acquire their licence and have this scheme put on. However, because technology has not caught up to the legislation—which is quite unique, because it is usually the other way around—there is no reliable technology that is effective enough to be put into these machines to detect drugs. That is why we have this scheme.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to confirm that my understanding of the impact of subclause (4) of this clause is correct, that is, if there is a situation where someone obtains a licence that is issued after a period of disqualification but which does not come within the ambit of the alcohol interlock scheme, or is in someway excused from the alcohol interlock scheme, that person will, in fact, have the restrictions of their new licence extended for further time equivalent to what they would have had had they had the alcohol interlock scheme. I want to clarify whether that is a correct reading of that particular clause.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, the shadow minister is correct. If the registrar decides, for a number of reasons—medical or distance—that the interlock scheme is not feasible, there is still a probationary licence for the period as if you had had an interlock scheme. Yes, you are right. The scheme provides that the probationary period is as long as whatever your disqualification was, and that is also the period for which you have the interlock on. If the registrar decides, for a number of reasons, that you cannot have the interlock scheme or that you do not qualify to have it, you must be on probation for that period as if you had had the interlock.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the minister give me some idea of the circumstances in which it is anticipated that someone who has committed a serious drink driving offence, who would otherwise be expected to go on the alcohol interlock scheme, will be issued a licence without the interlock scheme?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice that I have has reassured me because I had similar concerns to those raised by the member for Flinders. If the providers are so far away in a remote location, where it is impractical to have these machines, the registrar could then give an exemption. If there are medical conditions, if people have a psychological problem about putting these devices into their mouth (due to a sexual assault), they could be given exemptions. That is where we are going with these exemptions. It is about the tyranny of distance and any psychological or health problems.

Mrs REDMOND: I understand the potential medical problems, and even psychological problems, but, with due respect to the member for Flinders, I am a little puzzled about the idea of someone being so far away. My experience on the Road Safety Advisory Council was that, in fact, we have more problems per head of population with country drivers, or people from the city driving in the country. A lot of our major accidents are out on country roads.

My understanding of the way this would work is that, once you are convicted, you have to nominate your vehicle. It gets brought into town and has an interlock device installed and it is in there for three years. Is the problem simply in getting the vehicle to town for the insertion of the interlock device? Once it is in, it seems to me that there should not be a problem; that driver should be subject to the same rules.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand your thinking, but the reality is that these machines need to be calibrated. Every time you use them, they collect data, and that data must be downloaded. We envisage that local mechanics and local electrical companies will become licensed providers of these machines and will install them, so they need regular contact—if not monthly, then fortnightly. So, if you live 200 kilometres away, and you have to travel 800 kilometres a week, the concerns of the member for Flinders kick in. Knowing her concerns, the government has acted in advance, and that is why we have these exemptions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Why has South Australia not considered what is happening in Sweden? If there are problems with fitting interlock schemes in relation to distance, why are we not putting in interlock schemes straightaway when people are convicted of drink driving, as they are doing overseas? I understand that in Sweden they have 30 days to fit an interlock to their car, and I believe a similar situation exists in the USA and Canada.

Why have we decided to give them a period of disqualification? I think that research shows that people who are disqualified from driving still drive anyway, so we will have either to bring forward the interlock scheme or increase the police resourcing. I think there is a real issue here that we have not caught up with.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The first reason is that there has to be a penalty for drink driving other than just a fine. If we are ruling out imprisonment for not as serious cases—but drink driving is a very dangerous offence—the government has a policy of fines and disqualification. We are removing them from the roads. This government considers people who drink and drive to be a danger to themselves and others, and we want them off the roads for a period of time so that they can learn their lesson.

We also want to remind them of that lesson daily with the interlock scheme, and it is a policy decision of this government. I understand the member for Morphett's goodwill and that he is a passionate advocate about this issue. I am not trying to have a go at him, because I know what he is saying: he is trying to cut out the middleman and go straight to the heart of things. We believe that there has to be some love and punishment; they go hand in hand.

Clause passed.

Clause 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one question, and it relates to subclause (3), which inserts a new subsection (7) into section 81C of the act. It provides:

In determining whether an offence to which this section applies is a first, second, third or subsequent offence for the purposes of this section, any previous drink driving offence or drug driving offence for which the person has been convicted or that the person has expiated will be taken into account, but only if the previous offence was committed or—

if it has been expiated—

was alleged to have been committed, by the person within the prescribed period immediately preceding the date on which the offence to which this section is alleged to have been committed.

My question relates simply to the use of the word 'prescribed', as it instantly alerts me to the fact that it will be set down in regulation. My understanding was that we had come to sort of landing on how long it would be, in terms of assessing first, second, third and subsequent offences. I am curious as to why the new subsection refers to the minister's prescribing the time that will be taken into account and whether it is, in fact, building in some flexibility so that the minister can, for example, decide that he will take into account 10 years, as per the proposed amendment in the other place.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the member reads on, subsection (8) of the act provides:

For the purposes of subsection (7), the prescribed period is—

(a) in the case of a previous offence that is a category 1 offence—3 years;

(b) in any other case—5 years.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question in order to confirm my understanding of new section 81E, in particular new subsection (3)(b). The minister may recall that, during my comments on the second reading, I indicated that I anticipated that that new subsection had been inserted in that way to get over the problem of someone who currently has had a period of disqualification, who has served that period and who has applied for and obtained a new licence but before this has come into play. This new subsection is meant to deal with that person.

I want to confirm that that is the correct interpretation and, if it is not, what is its purpose? It provides that it applies to a person who applies for a licence who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence because of a serious drink driving offence after the commencement of the section and who has not held a licence since the end of the period of disqualification. It also states that a licence issued to them will be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme. Therefore, presumably the converse of that is that, if they have had the conviction for a serious drink driving offence and they have held a licence since then after serving their disqualification, then that it is to avoid a period of retrospectivity, but I will wait to hear what your advisers say.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there is no retrospective nature to this clause: it is simply codifying the process in which you would legitimately obtain your licence. The clause is set out to define the exact procedure you need to go about to legitimately re-obtain your licence.

Mrs REDMOND: Then I am puzzled by why we need subsection (3)(b), because it would seem to me that a person who applies for a licence after they have been disqualified and served a period of disqualification will be subject to the alcohol interlock system, and I do not understand why we then need to spell out that they have not held a licence since the end of the period of disqualification.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is there to ensure that, after you have gone through the process of being disqualified under paragraph (a), gone onto the interlock scheme, applied for a licence and then been in court again, there is a procedure to know exactly how you walk through the process of reobtaining a licence after reoffending. It is so we can codify exactly the procedures in place and where people should go once they have committed these offences.

Mrs REDMOND: I will accept that explanation. I only have one other section I want to ask a question on, and it is within clause 24. On the way to that section, which is the new section 81G, I will just make a couple of comments on section 81F, and it is something I discussed with the minister in conversation. Section 81F, which appears on page 33 of the bill, sets out the conditions for the operation of the mandatory interlock scheme and says that you have to have a nominated vehicle. I already alerted the minister to my puzzlement that there is no specific provision for changing the nomination of that vehicle with a changeover.

The other thing I think might be worth contemplating—and it may be able to be dealt with by regulation and it may be able to be dealt with at a subsequent time when the problem actually arises—is that I think there is potential for the need for more than one nominated vehicle if, for instance, someone has a job where they have a vehicle supplied by their employer. I would have thought the whole point is to stop them driving while they have alcohol in their blood but not to stop them driving a particular vehicle, and it would seem to me to be sensible to enable, for instance, an employer to support someone who is going through a rough patch and is going to do the right thing and not drive with alcohol in their blood. They have a job and they need to drive for their job, so they can keep their job. This section does not seem to contemplate the possibility of having more than one nominated vehicle concurrently, nor the provision for changing over if you change cars. I make that comment for the minister's thought at a later time.

My one remaining question relates to new section 81G. I simply want to confirm my reading and understanding as I expressed in my second reading contribution—that is, once you are convicted for this offence and have had an alcohol interlock scheme applied to your licence, no matter how long in the future you go without driving, when you resume driving you will still be subject to the alcohol interlock scheme. So you could have the offence, get your disqualification period, have one month of driving with an alcohol interlock scheme and 10 years later come back and apply for another licence and that licence will say that you still have two years and 11 months to do with an alcohol interlock. I take it that it works much like getting a P plate—that is, if you have to go back on your P plates you have to go through the period of the P plate requirement. I take it that is the way section 81G operates, but I want to get that confirmed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member is correct that a person cannot avoid going onto the mandatory scheme simply by handing back their licence. If they do so and then subsequently reapply for a licence, they will have to serve out the balance of the prescribed minimum period as defined in new section 81E. The proposed scheme is mandatory and the ability to avoid time on an interlock is not consistent with this approach. So, no, you have to do it. You have to serve your time.

Mrs REDMOND: Again, I simply want to confirm the expectation of my thinking which is that, once someone goes onto the scheme, they simply stay on the scheme. Theoretically, if you decided to, you could get the alcohol device fitted and use it for a month. You do not like it and do not drive for three years but keep the alcohol interlock on your car so that when the three years is up you are entitled to apply for the fresh licence, even though you have not driven, but, if you actually surrender your licence, when you go to get your new licence, you still have to go back on the scheme.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is correct. You are still serving a penalty. You are still not driving. I think there is a bit of education here, as with all interlock schemes. We would prefer people to use it but, if they chose not to, as long as they had their licence that would be fine, but I think that defeats the purpose of the interlock scheme. Yes, you could do that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (25 to 40) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT