Mr WETTENHALL (21 Feb 2007) (3.52 pm): For nearly two decades now-since the introduction of random breath testing in Queensland in 1988-there has been a steady decline in the road toll. This welcome trend in our state has occurred in many other jurisdictions around Australia and elsewhere where random breath testing occurs. It marks the achievement of an almost universal acceptance of random breath testing, as the community has reached a much deeper understanding of the risks of driving whilst affected by liquor.

But, as has been pointed out by honourable members during the course of this debate, that has not always been the case. When random breath testing for alcohol was introduced, it is fair to say that many people were either ignorant or immune to the risks of drink driving. Over time, the combination of the introduction of new laws, stricter penalties and falling fatalities have brought a much greater and deeper understanding and acceptance of the risks of drink driving and its appalling consequences.

During the course of this debate more than one honourable member has reflected on that dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night that so many parents, families and friends have answered and which all of us fear. Late on Christmas Eve in 1969 my parents answered the door to learn that their eldest daughter, then aged 21, was involved in an horrific crash and that she was fighting for her life. I was six at the time and I awoke, too. I will never forget it-nor the day after when the shock descended on our family and engulfed my parents in mixed emotions of grief and hope. For the next six months, as my sister lay in a coma, my parents never gave up hope. Miraculously, neither did my courageous sister. She survived, but then there were the long months-turning into years-of rehabilitation, of legal proceedings, of the very long road to recovery and of learning to live with all the complexities and hardships associated with severe brain injury. During the course of this debate, in supporting this legislation, many honourable members have identified with those families throughout this state and this country who have been in that position. It is heartening to hear that that is the case. Today, as my sister approaches her 60th birthday, this parliament is considering measures that will, we all hope, create a safer road transport system.

Earlier in the week we learned of measures being taken by this government to assist in expanding the choices for people in this state with acquired brain injury, in particular, focusing on expanding the choices for those young people who, for a variety of reasons, have found themselves housed-sometimes inappropriately-in aged-care facilities. This government, together with the federal government, has committed resources to a project to move those young people with acquired brain injury-many of them as a result of road trauma-out of aged-care facilities and into more appropriate accommodation facilities. That is a very welcome development in this state and around the country. I want to take this opportunity to say to all of those families who have been affected by road trauma, whether through the loss of a loved one or through injuries sustained by families and friends, that all of us have those circumstances in mind when supporting this legislation.

I hope that these new laws, as well as creating an effective deterrent, will also change attitudes about driving after consuming drugs, whether that be cannabis, amphetamines or ecstasy-which are the drugs that are identified in the legislation-or any other intoxicating drug, whether illicit or prescribed. In the course of this debate other honourable members have reflected on earlier times when the risks and dangers of driving whilst under the influence of liquor were neither well understood nor accepted. I expect that, just as attitudes to drink driving have changed, so attitudes to drug driving will change. I hope that these laws will be an important catalyst for changing those attitudes as much in consequence of a greater understanding of the risks of drug driving as by the fear of being caught and detected.

To that end, comment has already been made during the debate about the excellent road safety community education campaigns that have been conducted in this state and elsewhere. I urge the minister to continue those campaigns because community education is a very important component and must be complementary to achieve the objects of this legislation in that it ought to focus on the risks of driving after using any drug, whether it be illicit or prescribed.

The timing is right for broad community education about these new laws. That will promote acceptance and respect for the laws as the community at large gains a better understanding of the health risks of using illicit drugs in particular and also, in the light of recent research, as more and more young people gain an understanding of the negative attitudes to cannabis use in particular. Our education campaigns must ensure that negative attitudes to cannabis use do not reflect or translate into acceptance of other potentially more harmful drugs.

This bill also enables a new regime for learner and probationary drivers. The most significant of those proposals will enable regulations to be introduced in relation to lowering the learners age to 16 and extend the minimum learners licence to 12 months. A number of honourable members have spoken in the debate about the 100 hours of certified, supervised on-road driving experience that will be required under proposed new regulations enabled by this bill.

A number of members during the debate have referred to statistics which, in general, support and justify these new laws. They are accompanied by important and necessary safeguards to the rights and liberties of the individual including, importantly, that saliva samples obtained will be destroyed. When a sample is obtained from a person who in the opinion of a police officer is exhibiting behaviour consistent with intoxication from drug use but the subsequent analysis of the sample proves negative to drugs, such samples will also be destroyed. In those circumstances, the person will have the right to have a sample given to him or her to conduct their own independent tests. They are important safeguards in the legislation. An additional one is that DNA cannot be obtained from a sample to be used to determine whether or not some other offence has been committed. Those are important safeguards that address concerns that have been raised during the debate in the community that preceded the introduction of this legislation.

The penalties that will apply to convictions under the new drug-driving laws, if I am not mistaken, have not been mentioned during this debate. I think it is important that the House and others know what they are. For a first drug-driving offence without any previous convictions in the past or in the previous five years, the maximum penalty is 14 penalty units or three months imprisonment, and the disqualification period is one to nine months for the holder of a licence or three to nine months if unlicensed or the holder of a probationary, provisional or restricted licence.

The penalty regime in the new legislation is dependent upon previous convictions. For one low blood alcohol concentration offence-that is, under 0.15-or one previous offence for drug driving, the maximum penalty is 20 penalty units or six months imprisonment, and the disqualification period is between three and 18 months. For two or more low blood alcohol concentration offences or a drug-driving offence, the maximum penalty is 28 penalty units or nine months imprisonment, and the disqualification period is up to six months. For one high blood alcohol concentration or drug-driving offence or an offence of dangerous driving, the maximum penalty is 20 penalty units or six months imprisonment, and the disqualification period is a minimum of nine months.

For one low blood alcohol concentration offence and a drug-driving offence and one high blood alcohol concentration offence or a drugs offence or a dangerous driving offence, the maximum penalty is 30 penalty units or one year's imprisonment, and the disqualification period is a minimum of one year. All of those disqualification periods are minimum periods. That is a sensible penalty regime reflecting an increasing range of penalties having regard to persons who persist in engaging in drug or drink driving. I commend the bill to the House.