Bills

Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (16:24): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me move a motion without notice forthwith for the rescission of the vote on the amendments of the House of Assembly in the Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There not being an absolute majority present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (16:26): I move:

That the vote on the amendments of the House of Assembly in the Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill taken in the committee of the whole on 16 November be rescinded.

Motion carried.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (16:27): I move:

That the Speaker do now leave the chair and the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole for the consideration of the amendments of the House of Assembly in the Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill.

Motion carried.

Final Stages

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will give a couple of minutes of summary of where we are up to with this bill. As members will recall, the bill is about to increase a range of the penalties when it comes to drink driving and, predominantly, drug driving. It is also to enable SAPOL to use new technology, replacing redundant technology, when it comes to drug-driving detection and offences. The bill has been back and forth between the houses a few times. Essentially, there have been three issues of contention which, to the best extent possible, we have reached agreement with the opposition on because these were facing stumbling blocks in the Legislative Council.

The first of those issues was around an amendment from the Legislative Council in regard to drug treatment programs as opposed to assessments of whether somebody is still addicted or has an addiction problem in regard to drugs or alcohol. The second issue was about the use of medicinal marijuana and whether or not you would be able to get a doctor to give a defence in court to say that, even though you were detected with THC in your system, you should get off the charges for doing that because it was for a medicinal purpose.

The third issue came about originally from an amendment from the Australian Conservatives, which was supported by the government, and then in an amended form by the government—and it was also from the Ice Taskforce—to allow police to use the detection on a roadside test for drugs to be able to search the vehicle to determine whether there may be other drugs in the vehicle. They are the three issues of contention.

Between the government and the opposition, we have now resolved to accept the amendments from the Legislative Council in regard to the treatment in a slightly altered form and also to keep the status quo in regard to what was the medicinal cannabis provisions, so we do not proceed with that change to the law that the Legislative Council recommended.

In relation to the third issue, we have agreed to disagree at this stage. I will be making clear that it is still the government's intention to proceed and that the police should be able to conduct a search in that scenario, and that is something that we certainly will be taking to the election and hopefully reintroducing in the next parliament. However, given that we have not been able to reach agreement with the Legislative Council and the opposition on that last measure, we will take it out of the bill at this stage. But, as I said, we will look to reintroduce that next year.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I therefore move:

That the House of Assembly no longer insist on its amendment but make the following amendments in lieu thereof:

Clause 10, page 8, lines 10 and 11 [clause 10(1), inserted subsection (1)]—

Delete 'to attend an assessment clinic for the purpose of submitting to an examination' and insert:

to submit to an examination by an approved assessment provider

Clause 10, page 8, lines 14 to 17 [clause 10(1), inserted subsection(1)]—

Delete 'the applicant has successfully completed a prescribed alcohol dependency treatment program not more than 60 days before the date of application for the licence.' and substitute:

—

(a) the applicant has successfully completed an alcohol dependency treatment program not more than 60 days before the date of application for the licence; and

(b) the applicant is not dependent on alcohol.

Mr KNOLL: To concur with what the minister is saying, we have reached a form of agreement and, understanding how pesky the upper house can be in relation to a number of these things, we have realised that to give them a bill that they will accept in its entirety is the way to go.

What the government has agreed to in relation to this amendment is that there should be greater access to rehabilitation. The amendment as it stood that the Legislative Council gave to us was one that gave an alternative method for seeking drug treatment as an alternative to the drug dependency test. Essentially, that program was going to be prescribed by the regulation. The government had some concerns around that, forcing it to set up a separate rehabilitation program and there are questions then around how that is done. They have offered an alternative whereby we have a hybrid model.

What we have been arguing is that there is a drug dependency test, and we would contend that that does not work. There were over 600 people last year who passed the drug dependency test who went on to commit further offending. We think that greater access to rehabilitation is the best way to get people to change their behaviour.

As I understand it—and I am asking for confirmation from the minister—what we have agreed to is that, instead of having a drug dependency test and a prescribed rehabilitation program over here, we have merged it into one that we are essentially calling an alcohol or a drug dependency treatment program, the prescribed program. What is interesting is that the drug dependency test is prescribed to the extent that the government authorises approved providers to undertake that test. At the moment there is only one, namely, the Corporate Health Group, and the drug dependency test is essentially a couple of hours worth of testing, whether that be physiological, whether that be taking samples, or whether that be psychological.

As I read this new clause, we are essentially now going to have a situation where we can broaden the scope so that it is not just somebody who provides a drug dependency test; it could be somebody who provides a form of rehabilitation treatment at the end of which is a level of assessment which makes a determination on whether that rehabilitation program has been successful. Really, this gives opportunity to the government of the day to be able to design this alcohol or drug dependency treatment program to suit its purposes.

On that basis, we are comfortable because in fact, if done in the right format, this will actually force people to seek drug treatment, that as part of getting your licence back not only do you have to complete this test but you also have to complete a treatment regime and a treatment program that will help you to change your behaviour. Again, it is incumbent upon the government to approve a program that meets the words as they are put in these amendments, but I think this is a fantastic step forward.

However, in turning this into a question, am I correct in saying we are going to have two processes and that there is not going to be an approved drug treatment program and a drug dependency test? We are essentially going to have one process. At the moment there is a drug dependency test. Under this amendment, is the government required to change any of the processes the Corporate Health Group or another provider undertakes because we have changed the name from 'drug dependency test' to 'drug dependency treatment program'?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think, essentially, what the member is saying is correct. I would say that obviously this was not our preference originally, and we have come to a compromise here. I think it is clear from the government perspective that there is quite a bit of work to go through in how this actually gets implemented. This was not part of the original plan but, essentially, as I understand it, it becomes broader to a treatment program. There is a lot of work that will need to be gone through in terms of the design of that, but the changes we were very keen to make in this amendment were that we are not losing what was in there originally, which is that the person is not dependent upon alcohol or, in the second amendment to follow, that the person is not dependent upon drugs. That needs to be a feature of it.

Certainly, we do not accept the characterisations that have been made just then, and also previously about the assessment that is currently in place, but by the by I think we have reached the best compromise we can on this and will now work to implement this in the spirit that it has been put.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

That the House of Assembly no longer insist on its amendment but make the following amendments in lieu thereof:

Clause 10, page 9, lines 2 and 3 [clause 10(1), inserted subsection (2)]—

Delete 'to attend an assessment clinic for the purpose of submitting to an examination' and substitute:

to submit to an examination by an approved assessment provider

Clause 10, page 9, lines 6 to 9 [clause 10(1), inserted subsection(2)]—

Delete 'the applicant has successfully completed a prescribed drug dependency treatment program not more than 60 days before the date of application for the licence.' and substitute:

—

(a) the applicant has successfully completed a drug dependency treatment program not more than 60 days before the date of application for the licence; and

(b) the applicant is not dependent on drugs.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 3 to 6:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

That the House of Assembly insist on its amendments.

Mr KNOLL: Amendments Nos 3 and 4 were essentially further amendments trying to insert rehabilitation into the bill. We accept that amendment Nos 1 and 2 do what it is that we are seeking to achieve, so we are happy for those two to be pulled out. Amendment No. 5 also is actually in relation to rehabilitation and is essentially where we were looking at a process whereby a sufficient amount of treatment needed to be undertaken.

Again, we accept the compromise that we have come to probably provides the best form of what needs to happen going forward, but amendment No. 6 is the medical cannabis clause and, as such, on that we accept that we keep pace with what is happening with prescription drugs, but we accept, again, to move this bill forward and to come to resolution that this was going to happen this time, but also that potentially more work needs to be done to perhaps more greatly refine where there is an issue and where there is not an issue.

To give you an example, where medical cannabis does not contain THC (where the active ingredient is CBD), those people will not be affected by the current drug-testing regime. They will not have any THC present in their system and they will go forward and do what they are doing. There is a second lot of medical cannabis that would have a psychoactive element. We accept that there could potentially be some issues with that. We believe that the medical fraternity were mature enough to be able to make the decision on that, but we accept that there is a group of people on medical cannabis that should not be allowed to drive. Again, that is not something that is inconsistent with the amendment.

I think what we are trying to achieve here is in relation to that group of people for which there is a presence of THC that is not psychoactive, because its processing has not activated that THC, but it is there. There may be other ways to corner that group of medical cannabis products and deal with it in a different manner. Having said that, I think that more work needs to be done on and more that needs to be understood. Another point that I would make in relation to this is that, going by questions and answers during the last time we dealt with this bill, the lower limit threshold for a positive test of THC is actually 50 microns, which is not insignificant.

Again, there is a group of people who potentially have trace elements of THC which are not psychoactive as part of the product as it enters into the bloodstream. More work needs to be done to understand whether the THC will be detected in a drug test when people consume that product, or whether it stays below the 50-micron limit that shows up as a positive result. We still think there is more work that needs to be done in this space.

We do not think that this issue is going away, but the use of medicinal cannabis is quite new in South Australia. As that use matures and we gain broader acceptance of how it operates and how it affects people, and how it should work in relation to people being allowed to drive, we will deal with it at some point in the future. I will put on record that it is interesting that we are discussing risk in relation to THC levels in people's bloodstreams, yet people are still able to abuse opioid prescription drugs and other mind-altering prescription drugs that are not detected. This is part of the roadside drug-testing regime that goes unaccounted.

There are already risks on our roads that we choose to ignore because they do not fit within the current drug-testing regime. I find it incongruous to suggest that there is not already a risk out there—because of inaction from the government, they have deemed it to be an acceptable risk—and that somehow this is a different set of risks. But I accept that in moving this bill forward we will have to deal with this issue in a future parliament and so we will be supporting the amendments as they are put down.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 7:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

That the House of Assembly no longer insist on its amendment.

I just note what I said originally: it pains me to move this amendment. In seeking something that will get through the parliament, and particularly through the Legislative Council this week, we have been forced to remove this thoroughly sensible measure. I think the community would expect that if the police finds somebody who tests positive to the drugs that we test for, whether it is ice or some other drug, the police should be able to search that vehicle.

I think that is a perfectly sensible thing to do, and we hope to return to the next parliament and reintroduce this measure, which will give our police the powers that they need and helps implement one of the recommendations from the Ice Taskforce.

Mr KNOLL: We welcome the government backing down on this, although I do not want to characterise it in that way in the spirit of bipartisanship here, notwithstanding the minister's comments. Still, to date we have not received one piece of evidence where there is a deficiency in the current law. Also, I agree with the minister that it is better for us to send a clean bill to the Legislative Council that they will agree to without amendment so as to speed this process through rather than having to deal with the vagaries of that chamber.

I think that the minister is being quite mature in realising that it is better for us to deal with it here rather than let it go through the upper house. We accept that this is a fundamental difference between the government and the opposition, and we believe that the balance is right where it currently exists and that the test of reasonable suspicion should remain in relation to police powers. We will continue to prosecute that argument.

Motion carried.