❓ Question regarding the Minister's stance on zero-tolerance drink-driving for probationary drivers, referencing recommendations and practices in other states. The Minister defends the current .02 BAC limit, citing practical considerations and highlighting the government's road safety initiatives.
AnsweredQoN 173Legislative Assembly
Asked
7 April 2004
Member
Portfolio
Police and Emergency Services;
Justice; Community Safety
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her statement that imposing a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving on probationary drivers is nonsense and to the fact that police yesterday launched Operation Safe Roads for the Easter long weekend. (1) Is the minister aware that the Western Australian Road Safety Council’s task force on alcohol-related issues recommended the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving on probationary drivers? (2) Is the minister aware that the Royal Automobile Club supports the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving? (3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(1) Is the minister aware that the Western Australian Road Safety Council’s task force on alcohol-related issues recommended the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving on probationary drivers? (2) Is the minister aware that the Royal Automobile Club supports the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving? (3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(2) Is the minister aware that the Royal Automobile Club supports the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving? (3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(1) Is the minister aware that the Western Australian Road Safety Council’s task force on alcohol-related issues recommended the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving on probationary drivers? (2) Is the minister aware that the Royal Automobile Club supports the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving? (3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(2) Is the minister aware that the Royal Automobile Club supports the imposition of a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving? (3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(3) Is the minister aware that such a system has been successfully implemented in Victoria? (4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(4) Will the minister now stop playing politics, accept the advice of road safety experts, and support a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving for probationary drivers? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
(1)-(4) I really worry about members opposite when it comes to road safety. In eight years in government they took us from having one of the best records on road safety in the nation to one of the worst. The facts speak for themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In Western Australia the last three years have seen the three lowest road tolls in the past 10 years. We are again re-establishing ourselves as a State that is making significant changes in road safety. Since we came to government we have introduced graduated driver training and a hazard perception test. Young drivers are now on probation for two years, not just one year. When I was elected to this House in 1994, I presented a petition from the students of Aranmore Catholic Primary School to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones. When were they banned? They were banned in 2001 when our Government was elected. For eight years members opposite talked about reducing the speed limit on residential streets. Did they do it? No, they did not. At the end of 2001, we introduced a 50-kilometre limit on residential streets. Experience worldwide - certainly Australia-wide - indicates that a reduction of 10 kilometres an hour can cut death and serious injury in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. We have put that proved measure in place. Now members opposite are being cute with words again. They are talking about a zero-tolerance approach and saying that everybody supports a zero-tolerance approach. Guess what? We support a zero-tolerance approach too. Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Western Australia already has a zero-tolerance approach. Western Australia has a .02 blood alcohol level of tolerance. That is a tolerance that is supported by the Police Service because people may have had cough mixture, trifle or food containing liqueurs. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact is that things like mouthwash contain alcohol. The Government is not about penalising young people with a minuscule quantity of alcohol on their breath. This is about semantics. I think the member for Carine has indicated a bit of ignorance. We could follow the Victorian approach of zero tolerance, but it would probably have zero impact. The difference between zero and the practice in this State is nothing. Victoria has a zero level, but does not charge anyone with less than a .02 blood alcohol level because it would be impractical to do otherwise. Imagine taking people to court with lower levels. Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mr J.N. Hyde: Your tolerance is for a four-day bender! Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? Why isn’t he asking this question? You tolerate a four-day drinking binge. The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
The SPEAKER: My tolerance is up. I call the member for Perth to order. I warn members to desist from their interjections. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: A good point was made by the member for Perth. Members opposite were clearly too embarrassed to ask any alcohol-related questions while the member for the Kalgoorlie was in the Chamber. He is away today, so they were allowed to ask this question. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Essentially, Western Australia has a zero tolerance approach for young drivers. It is already in place. Even if members made the blood alcohol level .0 rather than .01 or .02 or whatever, it would have a negligible impact. In Victoria and elsewhere, charges over those minuscule amounts of alcohol would not be taken to court. We have a very strong approach in Western Australia. The Government has put in place more road safety initiatives in the past three years than members opposite put in place during their last eight years in office. The fact of the matter is that they talked about doing a lot, and they did nothing.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.