HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO—ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 February 2009. Page 1214.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:50): I support the second reading of this bill. I have always been committed to seeing what could be done by parliament and the government when it comes to addressing drink driving and driving under the influence of illicit drugs. Illicit drug driving is equally as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Tragically there are many examples of people who have already lost their lives in this state as a result of drug driving offenders not being detected. It is a real concern because, unfortunately, clearly there is greater use of illicit drugs in our community, and I am appalled at recent research that suggests that a significant number of drug users drive while under the influence of illicit drugs. The sooner these people are off our roads the better for the safety of the South Australian community.

Notwithstanding the fact that they often do not consider anything other than their own high when taking these drugs, they still believe there is a great chance they will not be detected when it comes to using illicit drugs and driving. I am pleased that South Australia is now getting on with drug testing. I hope the screening technology for marijuana, amphetamines and the like continues to get better so that the opportunities increase for South Australian police to be able to detect more minute but still dangerous levels of drugs and a greater range of drugs, because there are a lot of poly-cocktail drug users out there and a great choice of illicit drugs for those silly enough to go down that slippery slope.

Roadside drug testing should as soon as possible be extended to all other illicit drugs as technology allows. As we saw with the Rudd government's proposed alcopop tax hike, when you start to attack one particular product or drug by legislation, consumers often simply shift to something less regulated. I certainly hope that a lack of drug driving testing for heroin does not result in an increased uptake in its use, although at the moment clearly that appears to be the case.

We saw again on television last night that amphetamines are the major drug being manufactured and used and abused at present. Regrettably, young people are taking up amphetamines, and there is no sign that the use of amphetamines is abating. Nationwide, it is being called an ice epidemic.

I ask the minister to request her department to investigate whether some technology is perhaps being developed at the moment. I am not aware of that being the case, but I would appreciate it if the minister could inform the chamber now or in the future, after she has received advice from her department, whether interlock devices will be available some time in the not too distant future.

It is clear that, as drug testing is increasingly rolled out across South Australia, not only will more people be taken off the road but people will be reaching the end of their disqualification. Therefore, I believe that there ought to be scope to introduce a drug interlock system, as is the case with an alcohol interlock system. I understand the complexities of drug testing, having been associated with that towards the end of my time as police minister, when Victoria was clearly leading the way in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, it has taken some time for the legislation to be introduced in this place, but it is good that it is now before the parliament.

I agree with the sentiments of my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood that having people on interlocks sooner is good policy because it would eliminate arguments about whether or not a person knew they had been disqualified. In any case, the technology prevents someone from being on the road, rather than our relying on their desire to be a law-abiding citizen and therefore keeping off the road.

We should not be lazy with this bill, because there has been a lot of litigation in the courts and commentary about drink-driving laws. Drink drivers are always trying to find ways around these laws, and we have seen some high profile cases in recent times. It could be said that the most frequently challenged laws in the South Australian Magistrates Court are those relating to drink driving.

I note that there is a considerable number of amendments from the minister and others in relation to this bill, and this demonstrates the merits of a bicameral system of parliament, where proper scrutiny of legislation delivers better results. I am sympathetic to the general tenor of the Hon. John Darley's amendments to toughen the effect of this bill, and I will listen carefully to what he has to say about his amendments. The Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment is fairly simple and, in my opinion, common sense. Her amendment makes it mandatory, rather than at South Australia Police discretion, for people involved in motor vehicle accidents to submit to drug testing.

I put on the public record that I will never apologise for fighting for more resources for SAPOL. Yes, we need more and more police, but we also need more resources and a better budget for SAPOL. Budgetary restraints is the only reason SAPOL does not have more people out there drug testing, and I think that is quite a sad situation. The general theme of this bill is to equalise the treatment, under the law, of drug drivers and drunk drivers, and I think the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment has very strong merit.

Family First raised questions in the briefing, and I seek an assurance from the minister that there will be adequate deployment of alcohol interlock resources in regional South Australia where, sadly—and inevitably—drivers will be on mandatory alcohol interlocks as a consequence of this legislation. All honourable members in this place represent the whole state, and we must remember that a significant number of people live outside metropolitan Adelaide and will not be able to access the central service for alcohol interlock checking and maintenance.

As a country person, I am concerned that road trauma in the country has occurred often because of alcohol intake and because drivers think that they can get away with drink driving because of the lower rate of police presence in country areas and the fact that they have the option of using back roads to get home. That is why I want an assurance from the minister that there will be adequate deployment of alcohol interlock resources in rural and regional South Australia.


I understand that legal problems have arisen in country SA in relation to blood tests for drivers. Because there is no doctor available, hospitals are asking for a call-out fee for doctors, and it is often the case that the person has no money to pay the call-out fee. However, it is almost always the case that a registered nurse is on duty at the hospital. So, this is a country-sensitive amendment.

We must give the police as much power and as many resources as they need to keep the community safe, and this bill is a step in the right direction. I hope the government continues to focus on serious road safety initiatives, and I commend the minister for this legislation. I hope that the amendments we have flagged will be considered and supported by the government. I encourage the government to continue to look carefully at making it a priority to provide the budgetary resources required by South Australia Police.


[Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:47]


The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (19:48): I am pleased to have the opportunity today to contribute to the debate on the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Alcohol and Drugs) Bill. This bill is intended to complement a number of road safety reforms and give legal effect to the government's commitment to increase security on our roads for road users. It provides additional mechanisms to keep those who choose to drink or take drugs and drive away from our roads.

Sadly, we are all too well aware of the often tragic results of such selfish acts, whether they be impulsive, reckless, or even chillingly considered because, regardless of intention or circumstance, the results of these acts can change lives irreversibly. I know I do not have to describe those results to any of the members here in this chamber; we see them every day on the television news and sometimes we read about the judicial proceedings that follow. What we do not hear about so often is the heartbreak of bereavement and the long-term anguish of dealing with injury, pain and disability.

Let us consider some recent statistics issued by the South Australia Police. These are of particular significance to me, given the fact that my duty electorate of Chaffey covers rural and regional areas. In 2008, 56 per cent of all fatalities and 43 per cent of serious injuries occurred on rural roads. In the same year, 43 per cent of country fatalities occurred on straight sections of road. Single vehicle crashes—such as rollovers and leaving the road out of control—constituted 48 per cent of fatal crashes occurring on open rural roads.

Who are the victims? SAPOL statistics reveal that more than 73 per cent of people who die in crashes are males and that 62 per cent of those seriously injured are males. Young adults aged 17 to 24 make up only 11 per cent of the total population but account for 28 per cent of all road fatalities and 27 per cent of serious injuries.

What are the causes? Causes include speed, drink or drug driving, inattention and complacency, failure to wear seat belts, and fatigue. Of course, often multiples of these factors are involved in motor vehicle accidents. Statistics reveal that, in 2008, 36 per cent of people who died (that is, more that one third of all deaths) had a blood-alcohol concentration, or BAC, of .05 per cent or higher and that most had BACs three times the legal limit. Shockingly, of those drivers aged between 16 and 25 who died, 55 per cent—or more than half—had a BAC of .05 or more. Meanwhile, research consistently tells us that every .05 increase in BAC above zero doubles the risk of crashing.

In relation to drug driving, statistics show that, in 2008, 15 per cent of drivers and riders tested positive to drugs including cannabis, amphetamines and MDMA. It is also widely recognised that prescription drugs can impair driving ability and reaction times. The tragic consequences of these fatal alcohol and drug related crashes aside, these episodes cost the South Australian community many millions of dollars a year. Hospital, long-term care and rehabilitation costs where people are seriously injured, perhaps for a lifetime, are, of course, even higher. However, despite the best efforts of all concerned in road safety and related campaigns, there are still those who are determined to drink or take drugs and get behind the wheel.

Road safety is of paramount concern to this government. It is determined to alleviate this terrible toll of death and injury and to protect our innocent citizens from harm. As my friend the Minister for Road Safety stated in November last year, this bill looks towards the implementation of two initiatives. It puts into effect the government's response to the review of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Act's first year of operation—that is, 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007—and it introduces a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme, or MIS.

As those present are aware, the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Act empowers South Australia Police to conduct roadside saliva testing for certain prescribed drugs. Pleasingly, the review indicated that the first year of operation had been effective. Having established that effective operation, the review also recommended a number of improvements to the statute aimed at improving its efficiency. Some of these required amendment to the drink-driving provisions, and the minister has amply outlined amendments that are of particular note.

I wish to focus today on the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme, the MIS, to which I referred earlier. As members would recall, South Australia was the first of the Australian states to introduce such a scheme. Serious drink-driving offenders have been able to participate in the scheme on a voluntary basis if convicted and suspended under the Road Traffic Act 1961 for a relevant drink-driving offence on or after 16 July 2001. Other examples of successful interlock schemes may be found in certain states of the United States and in Sweden and Canada. I understand that the interlock unit, which is a small breath analysis unit, is about the size of a mobile phone. This is fitted to the vehicle and measures blood-alcohol concentration when the driver blows into it, allowing him or her to drive legally but preventing vehicle ignition if more than a designated amount of alcohol has been consumed—and usually that designated amount is zero.

Obviously, the device is intended to enable the user to keep mobile, maintain employment and community links and so on, whilst ensuring that he or she can drive only if no more than a designated level of alcohol is present in the blood. It is a win-win solution for the motivated user, for the families involved, for employers, for the economy in terms of continued productivity, and for the community in terms of enhanced road safety. In light of this, the Road Safety Council has made a recommendation that the MIS be made mandatory for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. The government completely concurs with this recommendation.

As a consequence, this bill provides that drivers convicted of serious drinking offences—namely, a second or subsequent BAC offence at or above 0.08 within five years; driving with a BAC at or above 0.15; driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor; or refusing or failing to provide a sample of breath or blood for the purposes of alcohol testing—will initially serve the full period of a court-imposed licence disqualification. When, and only when, that period has expired will they be able to apply to have an alcohol interlock device installed for the same period as that of the disqualification, up to a maximum of three years provided, of course, that no other barrier applies to the licence issue.

Only a nominated vehicle, fitted with the device, will be driven by a convicted person. It will be a serious offence for a driver to drive a vehicle not so equipped. Further, the final three months on a licence subject to MIS conditions will be particularly stringent so as to make certain that the offender has learnt to distinguish and separate the act of drinking alcohol from the act of driving. Once the interlock period has expired, the licence holder will be eligible to apply for a licence without MIS conditions.

The element of deterrence featured in this bill is paramount. However, there are other advantages flowing from its provisions. An administrative rather than a judicial scheme, the proposed regime will dispense with the present court-based approach to repeat offenders with its twin factors of cost and delay. Rather, the operation of the MIS will ensure that offenders' perception of the seriousness of their offences is not compromised. This is because the punishment will more quickly and closely follow the offending behaviour.

The scheme will also free up court time for other pressing matters requiring judicial attention. In addition, it is intended that the scheme will be cost neutral for government in the long term, because participants will meet all costs. The flexible payment system contemplated by the scheme will see participants on low incomes subsidised by those who are better off. As for those impacted by the cessation of the current voluntary scheme, transitional provisions will ensure that their rights and obligations are maintained.

While the bill removes the registrar's discretion with regard to alcohol dependency and assessments, it formalises his current practice in relation to licence issues in instances where there is a finding of dependency. The registrar's power to require medical assessments of fitness to drive pursuant to section 80 will continue. These powers may be applied in other circumstances involving alcohol or drugs.

Finally, certain maximum financial penalties have been increased as an additional deterrent to offending behaviour. Surely we can all agree that these provisions are timely, measured and appropriate. They make it abundantly clear that the government is determined to deal with people who persist in drinking or taking drugs and then getting behind the wheel. Ensuring the safety of all road users is a priority of this government. I support the bill and commend its terms to all honourable members.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (20:07): I thank honourable members for their contributions and their indications of support for this bill. I will take this opportunity to respond to the questions, concerns and in-house amendments raised by the Hon. Mr Wade, the Hon. Mr Hood, the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Darley. I will address these matters in the order in which they were raised. I realise that other members may have asked questions which I may not address in this second reading conclusion but which I will endeavour to do in the committee stage.

Given that the crash data was in percentage terms, the Hon. Mr Wade asked whether I might be able to provide the council with the absolute number of drivers and riders killed with a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit for each year since 1998. Toxicology reports show a total of 262 driver and rider fatalities with a BAC of 0.05 or more since 1998. The lowest recorded figure was in 2007 with 17 fatalities, the highest recorded in 2004 with 32 fatalities. The numbers in respect of driver and rider fatalities each year with a BAC 0.05 or more are as follows: 18 in 1998; 21 in 1999; 26 in 2000; 25 in 2001; 28 in 2002; 21 in 2003; 32 in 2004; 25 in 2005; 30 in 2006; 17 in 2007; and at least 19 fatalities in 2008. I understand that some 2008 toxicology reports are being finalised.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked: for each year since 2001, how many people have participated in the voluntary alcohol interlock scheme? The number of participants in the voluntary alcohol interlock scheme each year since 2001 are as follows: eight in 2001; 102 in 2002; 147 in 2003; 110 in 2004; 140 in 2005; 162 in 2006; 135 in 2007; and 103 in 2008.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked: how many people is it estimated would have been subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme if that scheme had been in operation since 2001? Under the proposed mandatory alcohol interlock scheme, a serious drink driver is defined as someone who commits any one of the following offences within five years: second or subsequent BAC at or above 0.08 (category 2 BAC); BAC at or above 0.15 (category 3 BAC); driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI alcohol); and refusal to provide a sample of breath or blood for the purposes of alcohol testing.

Figures from 2005-2007 show that approximately 2,700 to 3,000 offences were committed per year that would match the offences as they have been defined for participation in the mandatory scheme. Figures prior to 2005 are not available at this time.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked: since 2001, what proportion of that class of drivers who would have been subject to the mandatory scheme actually participated in the voluntary scheme? The participation rate under the current voluntary alcohol interlock scheme is very low, with only about 130 people on the voluntary scheme at any one time. This equates to about 4 per cent of the potential pool of participants that is likely under the proposed mandatory scheme.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked: how many people are estimated will be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme in the first five years of its operation? As I have stated, the figures from 2005-07 suggest that approximately 2,700 to 3,000 offences are committed per year that meet the criteria for drivers to enter the proposed mandatory alcohol interlock scheme. A similar number is expected during the first years of the operation of the scheme, although it is to be hoped that the amendments will themselves have some deterrent effect.

It is important to note that there will be a delay before the first participants start on the mandatory interlock scheme (MIS), first, to allow for the court process (one to three months) and, secondly, because the participants must first serve their disqualification. The minimum disqualification period for a serious drink driving offence is 12 months.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked whether the Road Safety Advisory Council recommended the voluntary alcohol interlock scheme be discontinued. In 2006, the Road Safety Advisory Council recommended that the alcohol interlock scheme be made mandatory for higher level drink driving offences; however, the implications of this decision on the existing voluntary scheme were not discussed.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked: given that the scheme is only mandatory for certain classes of serious repeat offenders, why did the government decide to discontinue the voluntary scheme? The voluntary scheme has had a relatively low take-up rate, with about 130 participants at any one time. Eligibility for the mandatory scheme includes all drink driving offences where the period of disqualification is 12 months or more, but it excludes category 1 BAC offences and first category 2 BAC offences.

Eligibility for the voluntary scheme is slightly wider, being all drink driving offences where the court orders a disqualification period of six months or more. The only offences covered by the voluntary scheme, and not covered by the mandatory scheme, are third category 1 BAC and first category 2 BAC offences. The number of drivers who have opted to participate in the voluntary scheme who fall into these two categories is approximately 30 at any one time, although the total number of offenders in these groups is much larger.

The voluntary scheme has been operating since 2001 and there is no reason to suppose that more of the drivers in the larger pool would choose to participate in the voluntary scheme in the future. This small number of additional people does not justify the costs for both the alcohol interlock service providers and the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure in handling the different administrative and reporting arrangements. No other jurisdiction operates a voluntary scheme alongside a mandatory one.

It should also be noted that the bill includes a provision requiring the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to direct a person who expiates or is convicted of three category 1 BAC offences or two category 1 BAC offences and one category 2 BAC offence to undertake a dependency assessment. Where the offender is assessed as alcohol dependent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles may only issue a licence that is subject to alcohol interlock conditions. This ensures that lower level drink driving offenders are still being held accountable for their behaviour.

Through transitional provisions in the bill, those already participating in the voluntary scheme will be able to continue to do so. Drivers who committed offences before the commencement of the amendments and who may have anticipated being able to use the voluntary scheme will be able to do so for up to five years. However, anyone on the voluntary scheme who surrenders their licence or ceases to hold one for another reason (for example, disqualification) will not be able to go back on to the voluntary scheme and will have to serve out the remainder of their disqualification.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked whether the government is confident that there will be enough devices available to meet projected demand. The response is yes; the government has held preliminary discussions on the introduction of a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme with both the interlock service providers currently operating in South Australia. Both interlock providers have been informed of the expected number of participants under a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme here in South Australia and are confident they can meet this demand. Victoria has had a mandatory alcohol interlock scheme operating since 2002 and has had over 10,500 interlocks fitted since inception of the scheme.

My understanding is that Victoria has never experienced any issues with an insufficient number of devices being available for participants. The Hon. Mr Wade asked: what will occur if insufficient devices are available to meet the needs of drivers subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme? I have been advised that the supply of alcohol interlock devices for South Australian participants will not be an issue. The Hon. Mr Wade expressed concern about the subsidy element of the mandatory scheme and opined that people should not be penalised in proportion to their income. The cost of the device is not proportionate to the participant's income. There will be a one cost structure for those holding one of a range of concession cards and one cost structure for those who do not.

The cost structures will depend on how many people are subject to the mandatory interlock conditions, how long they will be on the scheme and how many are concession and non-concession holders. The Victorian scheme has a concession component as well for concession cardholders. The Hon. Mr Wade asked whether the Participant Financial Contribution Scheme will be promulgated by regulation. The response is no. The costs of participating in the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme is a matter between the interlock provider and the participant. The devices are leased by the participant from the provider and the fees are invoiced on a monthly basis. This is consistent with the current voluntary scheme, with the exclusion of its subsidy arrangements under which eligibility entry is determined by the courts.

The yearly administration fee of $180 payable to the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will be promulgated by regulation. The Hon. Mr Wade asked about the anticipated costs for each participant. Preliminary advice suggests that the approximate cost for alcohol interlock participants under the proposed mandatory scheme, with a 35 per cent concession for eligible cardholders, may be around $2,200 for non-concession participants and $1,400 for concession participants. We should note that market forces will determine the actual participant fees as happens here currently with a voluntary scheme and also in Victoria.

The government will monitor the level of fees charged by the providers pursuant to the agreement for the procurement of services. An administration fee of $180 per annum payable to the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will also apply. The Hon. Mr Wade asked: how will the contribution of each participant be calculated and what is the minimum and maximum contribution that participants might face? As is currently the case, all costs are paid by participants in the program on a user-pays basis. The actual costs will be a matter between the interlock provider and the participant.

The fees for each participant will vary depending on the period of interlock driving, the company chosen by the participant, the type of car they drive and whether or not they are eligible for a concession. Fees will be invoiced monthly. As stated earlier, preliminary advice suggests that the approximate cost for alcohol interlock participants under the proposed mandatory scheme, with a 35 per cent concession for eligible cardholders, may be around $2,200 for non-concession participants and $1,400 for concession participants per year. This equates to about $4 or $6 respectively per day or around the price of one standard drink. The Hon. Mr Wade asked whether the financial contribution will be a debt to the provider of the device or a debt to the state. The debt will be to the provider. The devices are leased by the participant from the provider on a monthly basis.

I now respond to the comments of the Hon. Mr Hood, who noted that the discount to the licence disqualification period available under the voluntary scheme is not par for the mandatory scheme proposed in the bill. The government decided to introduce the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme because high levels of alcohol continue to figure in the crash data, and the numbers are increasing. The government wants to establish a strong deterrent to drink driving by requiring people to serve the full disqualification period imposed by the court and then making the new licence subject to the mandatory scheme conditions. Allowing people to get their licence back early risks encouraging a belief that the severe penalties for drink driving can be avoided. This, of course, erodes the deterrent factor and detracts from road safety messages. The mandatory interlock scheme is designed to ensure that, when they get back on the road after disqualification, drink drivers will be forced to separate the two behaviours.

It must be remembered that the offences included in the mandatory scheme are high level or repeat drink-driving offences. Under both the Victorian and Northern Territory mandatory alcohol interlock schemes, the drink-driving offender must serve the full disqualification period before being eligible to be issued with an alcohol interlock licence. The Hon. Mr Hood is concerned that the imposition of the scheme could lead to a high incidence of driving whilst disqualified. The government has anticipated this, and it is the reason why the bill introduces a specific offence of driving after the disqualification period has ended but before having completed the required period on the interlock scheme. The penalty for this offence will be equal to a repeat offence of driving whilst disqualified when never having held a licence in the first place. That is a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for one year.

The Hon. Mr Hood suggested that the mandatory interlock scheme will not be required for truck drivers. This is not the case. All licence holders will be required to have an interlock device installed after having served a period of disqualification for a serious drink driving offence. It is possible to install the devices in trucks, as well as on motorbikes.

The Hon. Mr Hood asked about the rollout of the scheme in country areas. It will be a factor in the procurement process and a condition of the government's agreement to approve interlock providers that they will have an adequate number and spread of approved service points around the state. Various options have been, and will be, considered by the providers, for example, appointing auto-electricians in regional centres as the approved service point.

I now turn to the contribution of the Hon. John Darley, who proposes a series of amendments that would have the effect of extending to 10 years the period within which previous drink and drug driving operating offences are counted when calculating whether another offence is a second or subsequent offence. The period is to be uniform across the Road Traffic Act, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Harbors and Navigation Act. The honourable member's reason is so that a court can look at an offender's history over a longer time.

The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure has provided the following information on the practice in other jurisdictions. In New South Wales it is five years. In Queensland it is five years. In Victoria it is 10 years. Western Australia has no limit, but under spent conviction legislation people can have previous offences removed from their records after 10 years. The Northern Territory has no limit but is considering a review to decide whether to impose some limit. Tasmania, again, has no limit but under null conviction legislation people can have previous offences removed from their records after 10 years.

This variation in interstate practice does not provide a strong argument for change from the current position in South Australia. My advice is that there is no need for alignment with the 10 years specified in the proposed nationally consistent spent conviction legislation. The purpose of that legislation is to set a maximum period that applies generally to minor criminal offences so that a person is not dogged for their whole life by a criminal record that may have resulted from an error of judgment made long ago in their youth. It does not preclude specific offences being treated differently, for example, by setting a shorter period.

The penalty levels for first, second and subsequent offences have been set on the basis that if a driver commits several offences in a five year period he or she is showing a wilful disregard for the law that justifies the progressively higher fines and disqualification times. If the repeat offending is spread over 10 years, there is not the same level of disregard and the penalties for repeat offences could be considered disproportionately high. Mr Darley's amendments do not take this into consideration.

It should also be noted that the period for category 1 BAC offences is three years, not five years, and an increase in the period to 10 years would not be appropriate for this offence, which is not considered as serious as other offences and is therefore expiable.

The government indicated in 2007 that it was prepared to support an extension to 10 years in the context of a bill tabled by the Hon. Nick Xenophon to remove the limitation on the period of time. However, the situation today is different because of the measures proposed in this bill. Extending the period as the Hon. Mr Darley proposes is not necessary in the context of introducing the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme and the requirement for dependency assessment for drivers who commit a second serious drink driving offence, three category one or two category one, and one category two offence or two prescribed drug offences. The bill will require serious drink drivers to serve their disqualification and then, for an equal period, have an interlock installed.

The bill will also require repeat offenders, even of less serious drink and drug driving offences, to be assessed for dependency. If assessed as dependent, these drivers will not be able to regain their licence until they are no longer dependent or, if they are dependent on alcohol, unless they go on to the alcohol interlock scheme. This is an alternative way of dealing with the drink and drug drivers that the Hon. Mr Darley also seeks to control. The government is of the view that the bill will provide sufficient deterrence at this time without the addition of the Hon. Mr Darley's proposals.

Finally, I will outline the government's position on the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendments. The Hon. Ms Bressington's amendments are to section 43 of the Road Traffic Act which requires a driver involved in an accident where a person is killed or injured to present himself or herself to the police at the scene or at a police station within 90 minutes of the accident occurring and to submit to any test for alcohol or drugs in blood or oral fluid that the police may require.

The main purpose of this provision of the bill is to ensure that drivers involved in a crash serious enough to injure or kill someone identify themselves to police and do so soon enough to enable police to require whatever alcohol and drug tests they decide are necessary to determine whether the driver should be prosecuted for an offence. The effect of the amendment would be to mandate the testing for drugs and alcohol of every driver presenting at the scene of a crash or at a police station regardless of the circumstances. This would remove the police discretion to assess a situation and act in a way the officer considers appropriate. This discretion is essential for effective policing and the best use of available and appropriately trained resources. Police already have, and use, the power to require a driver involved in a crash, regardless of whether death or injury is involved, to submit to a drug or alcohol test.

Drug testing of drivers has expanded since 1 July 2008. The government provided $11.1 million over four years for this expansion. This expansion has enabled the training of officers in drug testing, purchase of equipment and test kits and analysis of samples. Testing has been expanded from a centralised to a regional model covering the whole state, and over 40,000 tests will be undertaken this financial year.

SA Police currently test all drivers at a serious vehicle collision for both alcohol and drugs. This includes crashes where there is death or serious injury or allegation of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, dangerous driving or a defective vehicle which is perceived to have contributed to the crash. SAPOL officers operate under general orders which direct officers in how to undertake their duties. Failure to follow these procedures can result in disciplinary action.

As a result of the Magee case, SAPOL reviewed its general orders to improve procedures for testing for drugs and alcohol. It is preferable to further review the general orders to ensure drug testing is undertaken at a wider range of crashes than to mandate this in the legislation as the Hon. Ann Bressington proposes.

During the 2008 calendar year, 6,241 injury crashes were recorded by SAPOL, with 2,028 of those being reported at a police station. No fatal cashes were reported at a police station in 2008. As most crashes involve two or more vehicles, the number of drivers potentially to be drug tested could be in the vicinity of 12,000. However, the actual number would depend on factors such as how many drivers were themselves injured, as opposed to injuries to passengers, and in a position to report the crash to a police station within the required time.

The Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment would mean that every police station would have to carry breath analysis and oral fluid analysis equipment and, in addition, have an officer trained in its use on duty and available at all times to administer the tests. SAPOL has identified significant practical issues with the proposal, including drug testing facilities not currently being available in many areas across the state, and the provision of specialised equipment, which in many cases would be rarely used, very costly and an inefficient use of resources. Not all police officers are trained or qualified to conduct drug screening tests; mandatory drug screening would require all operational police to be trained generally; and while every general duties police officer has the capacity to screen for alcohol, the specialist breath analysis equipment is not available at all locations.

Again, this would be very costly and an inefficient use of resources, particularly in country areas where it would be rarely used. Non-sworn police personnel working in police stations can currently receive a report of a crash. They are unable to perform alcohol or drug tests. Therefore, any compulsory testing would require a police officer to be available at all times in the police station. This would be an impost on operational policing resources.

The government opposes this amendment, principally because the advice is that it is unnecessary. It unnecessarily restricts police discretion and is unlikely to have the intended impact, since police officers can require a driver to submit to a drug test at a crash and to do so when they think it is necessary and appropriate. Again, I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate and their indicated support for this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 6, after line 28—Insert:

(4) Section 70(4)—Delete '5 years' and substitute:

10 years

This amendment and all the other amendments I have placed on file seek to extend the time limit for consideration of previous drink and drug driving offences from five to 10 years. This will give the courts the flexibility to consider a person's drink and/or drug driving history over a longer period of time and potentially impose a much higher penalty, which will hopefully have a deterrent effect and send a message to repeat offenders that repeatedly breaking drink driving laws over a reasonable period of time will result in very serious consequences.

I note that a 10 year time limit for consideration of previous convictions is already contained in sections 11 and 12 of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007. This amendment is simply bringing drink and drug driving laws into line with what the government has already proposed in regard to its hoon driving legislation.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I indicated in concluding the second reading debate, the government will not support the amendment. We believe there is no need for the alignment with the 10 years specified in the proposed nationally consistent spent conviction legislation. As I explained previously, the purpose of that legislation is to set a maximum period that applies generally to minor criminal offences so a person is not dogged for their whole life by a criminal record that may have resulted from an error of judgment made long ago in their youth. It does not preclude specific offences being treated differently, for example, by setting a shorter period.

As I also indicated in my second reading summing up, the amendment of the Hon. Mr Darley does not take into account category 1 offences, which are expiable as well. I appreciate what the Hon. Mr Darley is saying, namely, that in 2007 we supported an extension to 10 years in relation to the limitation of that period, but the situation is different because of the measures we are proposing in this bill and we believe that extending the period is not necessary in the context of this very strong piece of legislation, in particular, the requirement for dependency assessment for drivers who commit the offences specified in the legislation.

It is important that we give this legislation a go, for lack of a better expression, and if there are any concerns after a period we may have to revisit this. It is a strong piece of legislation in the way it has been drafted and we believe there is no need to have both the honourable member's amendment and the proposed legislation sitting side by side. The government is of the view that the bill will provide sufficient deterrence without the additions proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have a couple of questions on the same clause. The minister in her second reading summing up commenting on Mr Darley's amendment, I understand, suggested that Queensland has a five-year limit, New South Wales five years and Victoria 10 years. Are they into analogous categories 2 and 3 offences and, if so, what do those states do in relation to category 1 offences?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We will have to take that question on notice as we do not have the information as to whether they apply to all offences, including category 1 offences.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am somewhat attracted to the minister's assertion that two offences in 10 years does not necessarily show the same level of disregard for the law as two offences in three or five years. However, the government's position is severely undermined by the fact that it saw the wisdom of this a mere couple of years ago and suddenly it has lost appeal. The minister asserts that the coming of wisdom for the government was because it discovered the mandatory interlock scheme, which is a deterrence device. I understand that this time limit for consideration of previous convictions is a judgment of this parliament and how, in an objective sense, society will decide whether somebody is a repeat offender. Whether deterrence is there or not, it would seem that the objective standard should not have changed.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I indicated previously, we need to check whether it is for the same range of offences.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: They were two different issues, one being about interstate practice, which I am happy to put aside. My second issue was more on the government's change of heart from 2007, when Mr Darley indicated that the government was previously attracted to this measure of the increase of the time limit from five years to 10 years. I understand that parliament is putting in this clause as a proxy for saying, 'How much disregard is there for the law?', and the government is asserting that two offences over 10 years, particularly if it is years 1 and 10, does not show the same level of disregard as two offences in three or five years. The presence of the deterrence effect of the mandatory interlock scheme does not, to me, affect the basic objectivity of the test, and I ask the minister to explain why the government has changed its view.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I have indicated, we believe the circumstances have changed in so far as the proposed legislation introduced by the Hon. Nick Xenophon was a one-issue bill. Tonight in this legislation we are dealing with at least two issues—the alcohol interlock but also the dependency on drugs and alcohol. We believe this bill is stronger in the way it has been crafted and drafted than it will be if we adopt the amendments of the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition is inclined to support maintaining the current time limits. The fact that the government was positive toward it two years ago and is not now is another example of the government's deciding how to manage its relationship with the Independents rather than how to develop good legislation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate Family First support for the amendment. We believe that 10 years, whilst in one sense a long time, in another sense is not a long time. If somebody commits a serious drink-driving offence in that period, certainly they should have learnt their lesson once and for all. We are attracted to the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, and for that reason we will support it.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I understand the good intentions of the Hon. Mr Darley, but let us be quite honest about this. If someone commits two offences in five years, that really does indicate that they have a bigger problem than someone who commits two offences in 10 years, and we believe this legislation really does deal with that very effectively. It is a stronger piece of legislation.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 27—

Line 23 [clause 12(8)]—Delete:

'—after the definition of prescribed conditions insert and substitute:

, definition of prescribed conditions—Delete the definition and substitute:

Prescribed conditions means learner's permit conditions, probationary licence conditions or provisional licence conditions;

After line 26—Insert:

(9a) Section 5(1), definition of unconditional licence, (a)—after 'not subject to' insert:

alcohol interlock scheme conditions or

These amendments are a package, and they are required to satisfy the policy position that a breach of the mandatory interlock scheme conditions should attract only a fine and not also a disqualification. The new offence of breach of mandatory alcohol interlock conditions attracts a maximum fine of $2,500 (new section 81H) and no disqualification. However, there is an existing offence for probationary or provisional licence or learner's permit holders breaching a prescribed condition, with a penalty of six months' disqualification.

'Prescribed condition' includes alcohol interlock conditions. People on the alcohol interlock scheme will be either probationary or provisional licence holders, and the two offences together mean that the breach of an alcohol interlock condition will result in a six month disqualification and a maximum fine of $2,500. This was unintended, and to remedy it an amendment to the definition of 'prescribed conditions' to remove the reference to the alcohol interlock conditions is necessary.

Disqualification for a breach of licence condition would result in a person coming off the MIS for a period and then going back on, which would occasion further costs and inconvenience for participants. As I have mentioned, this was never the intention. The second amendment is required for the same reasons I have outlined in relation to the first amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: So, the original wording of the bill, on which we were given a briefing, was in error, that is, the six month disqualification and the $2,000 fine was unintended?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am not sure whether the honourable member was briefed, but these amendments were filed on the first day of sitting this session. So, it may well be that that is the case. What I have just outlined does stand.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: By way of clarification, I think the Hon. Ms Bressington might have been asking whether the primary offence has changed. As I understand it, the primary offence has not changed; it is just that the government has observed that, inadvertently, a second offence would also have been created, incurred, or whatever, and that was not the intention of the government. The opposition supports the government's intention to let it be only one offence and not two.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The honourable member is correct; we believe that that disqualification is not required again.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I want to pick up the phrase in proposed section 79(4), as follows:

...if the registrar is satisfied, on the basis of the report of the superintendent of an assessment clinic, that the applicant is dependent on alcohol..'

Is that a term that is legally defined or defined in the statute? What does it actually mean?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is dependent on the superintendent of the clinic where the persons are being assessed, insofar as an international standard is used for both physical and psychological testing.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, would it be fair to say that that term would be generally understood in a medical or scientific context but not necessarily in a legal context?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is yes; it is medically, not legally, defined.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am concerned about the impact on country people. It has been raised with me that country people have found it difficult to get alcohol assessments under the current arrangements, and this makes it even more important that they get those assessments. What assurance can the government give that under this regime people will be able to get access to the assessments they need?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that we have only two clinics: a public one in Adelaide and a private one that was introduced several years ago to assist with demand at the time. If there is a need in the future, it is something the government could consider, but at this time there is no likelihood of that being considered outside of Adelaide.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Proposed section 81E(4) provides:

If the applicant satisfies the registrar, on such evidence as the registrar may require, that prescribed circumstances exist in the particular case…

I take it that those prescribed circumstances would be specified by regulation.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that subsection (4), as mentioned in clause 24, would allow an applicant for licence to satisfy the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that the licence should not be subject to the mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions, because prescribed circumstances exist in regulations. So the response is yes; it will be in regulation. It is possible that some unforeseen situation may arise that could prevent a person from participating in the scheme for medical reasons or perhaps because of living in a very remote area that an interlock provider is not able to access or service on a regular basis. The bill provides for the development of regulations to deal with these situations should they arise.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Still within clause 24, I now refer to proposed section 81H(2), which 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.

Could the minister explain whether this clause would apply to a person who was assisting a person subject to mandatory alcohol interlock scheme conditions to drive a vehicle other than the vehicle fitted with an alcohol interlock device, and whether a person might inadvertently commit this offence? You might well assist the holder of a licence subject to the conditions to drive a vehicle unaware that they are subject to those conditions and not intending to in any way undermine the scheme.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that that certainly would not apply to anyone else assisting: it would apply only to the person on an alcohol interlock who was participating in the scheme. Of course, it would be a breach of their conditions because they are allowed to drive only their own car with the interlock system on it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I find it difficult to read the provision that way because, as I understand what the minister is saying, 'a person' (at the beginning of that subsection) should be read to mean 'a person subject to the interlock schemes must not assist the holder of another holder of a licence subject to the conditions to drive a vehicle'. I cannot see why you should read it that way. It just seems to me that 'a person' is any person.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that this particular clause targets those who help somebody to start their own car when they have an interlock system installed. As I understand it, if you read further down, it refers to helping them to interfere. I think they need to be read together.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I can certainly appreciate the intent of the government in drawing up the clause. My only concern is that it has been drawn too widely. No matter what subsection (3) and others might state, on the face it 81H(2) says, to me, that if a third party assists a person subject to a licence with conditions to operate a motor vehicle they commit an offence, and that could be as simple as giving a set of car keys to a person at a social engagement, and that is assisting them.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is currently in the voluntary scheme; it is expressed in the same manner. I will clarify that the intent of the section is to stop a person assisting the participant to start their own car or interfering with the interlock system in the participant's own car. My advice, from several sources, is that it is not too wide; it is reasonably specific when you look at the two provisions together.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I wonder whether it might assist to clarify the intent of the bill, which we fully support, to insert the words 'the vehicle' or 'a vehicle fitted with the device'. In fact, is there not a provision to specify a motor vehicle? Why not say 'to operate the specified motor vehicle'? What I am suggesting is to delete the word 'a' before 'motor vehicle' and insert the words 'the specified'.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: In the interests of cooperation in this chamber we can live with that. As I said, we do not think it is too wide and we think it is clear, but we can certainly live with that. The only words we could insert in there would be 'the nominated vehicle'. I will obtain some advice. Parliamentary counsel has confirmed that it can be done between the two houses.

The CHAIRMAN: To make things easier in the committee stage of bills, if people have these sorts of questions that then turn into amendments on various clauses, it would be a lot easier if they tabled amendments in the first place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I did not know that an amendment was necessary until I was able to unpack the clause.

The CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, the time goes on and now we have ended up with an amendment that must be made somewhere else.

Clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 28 passed.

Clause 29.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: This amendment sought to ensure that, where an uninjured driver is involved in an accident that causes hospitalisation to another, the driver will be tested for the presence of both alcohol and illicit drugs in accordance with the established protocols in the Road Traffic Act.

At present, section 43 of the act does not mandate such a test but compels a driver to comply if a test is requested by the attending SAPOL officer. Information provided to my office by members of the police force suggested that rarely, if ever, is a drug test undertaken in this situation and, while the breath analysis for the presence of alcohol is conducted routinely, in some cases this is overlooked, as was demonstrated in the case of Eugene McGee, although there were mitigating circumstances, and I acknowledge that the minister has stated that protocols have changed since that case.

Section 43 must be contrasted with section 47I of the Road Traffic Act, appropriately entitled 'Compulsory blood tests' which ensures that all people hospitalised as a result of a car accident undergo a blood test for the presence of alcohol and illicit drugs. This creates what many in the community see as an absurd situation where an intoxicated driver who injures another but is fortunate enough to escape injury themselves would also escape penalty for, in the least, driving under the influence but, more seriously, for culpability for causing the accident. But if that driver was injured in the accident, they would be detected by the compulsory blood test under section 47I and prosecuted accordingly.

I am not going to proceed with this amendment because I have spoken with members of the police force and they have explained that this is a process that is gradually rolling out and progressing and that there would be issues with every officer carrying around at the minute the kind of drug tests that we are using, the number of police officers that are trained to conduct those drug tests and that, logistically and resource-wise, it would just be an impossibility at this point in time. The police are very keen to get the processes and procedures right and, therefore, they do not want to roll it out too quickly and find in hindsight that they have made errors.

I want to put on the record that I have had well over 200 parents contact my office since the roadside drug testing regime started, whose kids are driving under the influence of illicit drugs, have been involved in car accidents and have not been screened for drugs in their system. I know that we are all doing our best here to get a handle on this but I am just not quite sure whether we in this place appreciate the fact that, when that roadside drug testing was rolled out, for many parents this was actually a light at the end of the tunnel, if you like. They are sitting at home every night expecting that phone call informing them that their child either has been killed in a car accident or has killed somebody else, because it is a daily event that they are driving under the influence.

Now we are seeing these drivers who are not being detected. Parents are getting desperate, and that is why this amendment was drafted in the first place. I am not proceeding with it because, as I said, I have spoken with police and they have explained the logistics of this, and I fully appreciate that. However, I believe that it is necessary—and I will not try to tell the police how to do their job—for the community to be educated on the long-term intention of this bill so that parents do not become frustrated and angry, that the perception out there that this is all smoke and mirrors can be avoided and that their kids are not going to be intervened on.

I thank the police for taking the time to explain it so well. I wanted to put those comments on the record because this is a growing concern among parents in the community. They are desperately seeking a government to support them to intervene before their children are fatally injured or fatally injure somebody else.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I thank the honourable member for not proceeding with her amendment and for having taken the further briefing from SAPOL. I am very pleased that she has undertaken to do that. I assert that the drug driving regime is not smoke and mirrors. As a parent myself, I appreciate that it is every parent's worry that they will get that knock on the door.

The government has generously resourced this program. As I said in my second reading summation, a further $11.1 million over four years has been provided across all the agencies, but mostly SAPOL, to see the expansion of drug testing throughout our state. I have met the officers in charge and I can attest to their commitment, the commitment of the Commissioner and all those involved in road safety. As a government we can only continue, as the honourable member has said, to educate the public and also to continue with our campaigns. The Motor Accident Commission has more than doubled its advertising in relation to road safety.

The honourable member may be familiar with some of the drug-driving messages that we constantly try to give to the community. Ultimately and regrettably it is that particular age group of people. However, that is not necessarily the case; some of our research indicates that it is also older people. Regrettably, people are still taking drugs and then getting behind the wheel. Of course, the message we try to give is that, with increased funding, the likelihood is that you will be caught. It is important to continue to resource our police to ensure that a strong message does get out. Again, I place on record my appreciation to the honourable member for not proceeding with her amendment. I move:

Page 43, after line 28—Insert:

(1) Section 47(3)(da)—Delete paragraph (da)

This amendment is required to delete the reference in the Road Traffic Act to the voluntary interlock scheme and the provisions dealing with driving under the influence and driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol. These provisions deal with the court making an order allowing a person to apply for a licence subject to the voluntary scheme conditions. The references are now redundant because the voluntary scheme within the Road Traffic Act will no longer exist and the transitional voluntary interlock scheme within the Motor Vehicles Act will apply without the need for action by the court.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the minister explain why the government thought it was necessary to increase the time limit from two or three hours to eight hours?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it provides uniformity of testing in prescribed circumstances and random circumstances.

Clause passed.

Clause 31.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 44, after line 10—Insert:

(4a) Section 47B(3)(da)—Delete paragraph (da)

Again, this is the same as the previous amendment I moved. It is a tidy-up in relation to the reference to the voluntary interlock scheme which no longer will be required.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 45, after line 10—Insert:

(1) Section 47E(6)(da)—Delete paragraph (da)

I move this amendment for the reasons I just outlined in my previous two amendments, namely, that the voluntary interlock scheme will no longer be required. My reasons for moving this amendment are the same as the two previous explanations.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 34 passed.

Clause 35.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 46, after line 12—Insert:

(2a) Section 471(14a)(da)—Delete paragraph (da)

The reason for moving this amendment is the same as I have just placed on record.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 36 to 39 passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the minister explain the time periods for police officers in terms of initiating offences in relation to results for either drugs or alcohol?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is two years for most of them and six months for expiable offences.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This issue has been raised with me. As I understand it, there would be a sample held by the police and a sample held by the driver and, in situations where the police take quite some time to raise an issue in relation to the sample and the driver has not retained their sample, they are therefore not able to get it tested. In terms of police practice, what is an appropriate length of time before investigations are initiated?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We are obtaining some further advice, but my current advice is that Forensic Science has to destroy the sample after two years. I understand that two samples are taken and the driver then is given 12 months to pick up that blood sample for testing and take it to whomever they choose to take it to. We are getting some further advice from SAPOL.

As I previously indicated, two samples are retained and SAPOL has a requirement under the legislation to take samples to Forensic Science as soon as possible. Then, of course, as to be expected, SAPOL is clearly in the hands of Forensic Science in terms of how long it takes to analyse but, on average, I understand that it takes about two weeks.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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