THE government's new alcohol interlock law could be amended after further examples of employment hardship were heard by a parliamentary committee yesterday.
The law requires drivers convicted of two drink-driving convictions over five years or a single conviction with a blood alcohol level above 0.15 to fit alcohol interlock devices.
A parliamentary committee chaired by Murchison MLC Ruth Forrest took evidence from a number of people with livelihoods affected by the law, with several singling out the retrospective nature of the law for complaint.
Adam McLennan, of Old Beach, will need to fit six of his vehicles used in his business with interlocks - costing $3000 each - after two 0.07 offences triggered the clause.
He told the committee he was already over $50,000 out of pocket from the drink-driving punishments stopping his business and had well and truly learnt his lesson.
"The retrospective angle is totally unfair and puts an extra penalty after the court considered it and ruled in the first place," Mr McLennan said.
Denise Hay, of Launceston, told the committee her son served a two-year suspension after he blew 0.15, which led to her driving him to his job as an apprentice in Deloraine every day, and now faced the extra punishment of the interlock program.
"He well and truly learnt his lesson and we all did it tough ... it feels like a double penalty," Ms Hay said.
While Infrastructure Minister David O'Byrne has asked his department to provide advice on possible exemptions where the interlock would have a significant effect on employment, Ms Forrest flagged a potential disallowance motion to the law should the committee find it was required.
Email: email@example.com or Twitter: @benmackey