Bills

Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 September 2021.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:22): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill 2021 and indicate that I will be the lead speaker in this place for the opposition on this bill.

I do want to start, though, by congratulating the minister publicly—I have not had a chance to yet—and his wife, Charissa, on the birth of their son, Leo. It is wonderful news. I am sure it is keeping the minister very busy and that he is on a very steep learning curve like he has never known before. I do congratulate them and put on the record my best wishes.

This bill has caused some angst within the community, and there is no doubt about that. However, I want to indicate from the beginning that at least in this place there will be no unnecessary delay on the bill from the opposition, not least because there is a very senior police officer sitting outside who has spent the best part of the last half an hour listening to other motions rather than hearing about a particular road safety measure.

This is a road safety bill not a law and order bill, and I think that needs to be pretty clearly stated from the outset. This is primarily about keeping our roads safe. We know that the deaths and road trauma on our roads continue to be far unacceptably too high. With COVID, we did see a drop in road trauma due to changed traffic patterns, people working from home and so on, but sadly last weekend, and in the last week or so in particular, we have seen again an unacceptable spike.

Anything we can do in this house to prevent road trauma and deaths on our roads is to be commended and will be supported every time by those sitting on this side of the house. In saying that I will not delay it, there are amendments that have been brought quite late to this bill, so obviously they will be interrogated to a certain extent in this place. Certainly, in the other place we reserve our right to have a good look at those amendments and indeed all the clauses of this bill.

Labor and the previous 16 years of Labor saw a great many reforms and important improvements made to road safety laws in this state. We introduced a new graduated licensing scheme for young drivers, and I am pleased that, after considerable delay, the government has seen fit to replicate those graduated licensing provisions for motorcyclists.

We introduced static and mobile driver testing for alcohol and drugs, which is the crux of this bill today; increased use of child restraints, seatbelts and things like that; and mandatory alcohol interlock programs so that we do not simply allow recidivist alcohol users and drink-drivers back on our roads. We facilitated the introduction of the 50 km/h default speed limit in urban areas. I do note that certain councils have gone a step further, and there is probably more work to do in the future in that area.

We introduced new penalties; increased better targeted enforcement, with the cooperation of SAPOL; and introduced a network of safety cameras at high-risk intersections and, importantly, point-to-point speed cameras, which were much debated at the time, but I think they have been a real boon to road safety, particularly on dangerous regional roads. There were black spot programs of course; infrastructure safety programs, such as road shoulder sealing; increased numbers of four and five-star rated vehicles that provide better protection for occupants, and there is probably more to be said about that in coming years; and, of course, legislation to impound vehicles and crush vehicles of recidivist drivers.

I note that the government have expanded on that and some of the other areas, to be fair to them. In earlier terms of government, Labor did reduce the legal blood alcohol limit from .08 to .05, which was an important measure and I think went some way to making our roads safer. As I said, this is a road safety measure: this is primarily about keeping our roads safe. It is not primarily about punishing people, but, of course, in the process people do get penalised for good reason, and it remains for this place to determine those penalties and how punitive our laws should be.

This bill comes on the back of recent amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which was supported by Labor, it needs to be said. Labor will support any reasonable and sensible road safety measure in this place. That allowed police to issue a notice of immediate loss of licence—and ILOL will be a term we will probably hear a bit this morning—for the new offence of extreme speed and for causing death and harm through use of a motor vehicle.

This bill does the following things: it allows police to issue a notice of immediate loss of license (an ILOL) for the offences of reckless and dangerous driving and drug driving and it extends the scope of aggravated circumstances that will now be applicable to the offences of both careless driving and excessive speed so that they align better with other measures in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, including driving a stolen vehicle, driving on a restricted licence or without a licence at all or, in some cases, having passengers and particularly children in the vehicle. I note that there are amendments related to the presence of children in vehicles we will be debating later.

This bill also increases financial penalties, and it increases the financial penalty for excessive speed and allows, for the first time I believe, imprisonment for an aggravated and a subsequent offence. It will also provide for the possibility of a longer imprisonment term for a subsequent offence of reckless and dangerous driving.

An important feature of this bill, I think, and one which we will be supporting, is that it enables the Commissioner of Police to withdraw a notice of immediate loss of licence and reissue a fresh notice. Until now, a person to whom a notice had been issued had to apply to the court. Obviously, this is a lengthy process and clearly, if an administrative error has been made by the police or through no fault of their own or for other reasons, the Commissioner of Police now has the opportunity to withdraw that notice and the driver who is deemed to have not committed any offences can safely drive away.

Finally, it increases the penalty for driving suspended or disqualified to 12 months' imprisonment for a first offence, with a second or subsequent offence attracting up to three years' imprisonment. As I said, I will not be delaying this bill, but it has to be noted that there is some community angst around some aspects of this bill.

It builds upon the drug testing regime which has been well established and was established by the previous government, which tests for various illicit drugs. Importantly, and I think this is something we will have to tease out in the committee stage, it tests for the presence of such drugs, rather than any impairment they may cause. Of course, if there is obvious impairment, there are other offences which apply. Importantly, the drug testing regime which we have in place and which is being enhanced by this bill is triggered by the presence of a substance rather than any impairment it may cause.

This, of course, has implications for cannabis users, both recreational cannabis users and medicinal cannabis users. Like many others in this place, I may have heard from legitimate medicinal cannabis users who are worried that some of the measures in this bill are very heavy handed not only in terms of the detection of THC from medicinal cannabis and the effect that can have on their immediate ability to drive—when I say 'ability to drive', I do not mean their impairment; I mean their legal ability to drive—but also in terms of a potential criminal record, because we have now increased penalties and in some cases imprisonment for aggravated offences.

There are some questions to be asked in the committee stage, particularly on behalf of those constituents who have written to most of us, I believe, about the effects of medicinal cannabis. The important thing about cannabis generally—and I assume medicinal cannabis—is that, unlike other drugs that we test for, unlike methamphetamine, unlike cocaine, the presence of THC exists in the human body for far longer than those other drugs. So you could have a situation where someone has legitimately consumed medicinal cannabis three or four weeks prior to being drug tested and then they could potentially feel the full weight of this new legislation.

I think there are some questions to be asked. As I said, I will not be delaying this bill in any way, but I will be asking some questions through the committee stage. Of course, we reserve our right to further interrogate the bill in the upper house, but I will not be opposing a second reading of this bill.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:32): I rise to commend this bill to the house, introducing, as it does, important amendments to both penalties and provision for practical measures to deter drug driving, careless and dangerous driving. I will address some aspects of the bill briefly, including in particular clause 9.

Before I do that, I want to recognise, in particular, the good work of RAA Street Smart High. I had the honour on 19 October to represent the minister at the RAA Street Smart High session, one of several sessions conducted that week, facilitated by the RAA for the benefit of senior school students, both government and non-government, bringing home to them in what I would describe as confronting, relevant, real, instructive and motivating ways the reality of the consequences on individual lives of careless, dangerous and otherwise impaired driving on our roads.

As it has been for many years, the program this year was led in many ways by Dr Bill Griggs, who will be well known to members having over the course of his now more than 45-year career made the promotion of road safety and the enhancement of measures in relation to road safety one of his core objectives.

Bill Griggs AM ASM has distinguished himself in areas of road safety and public safety in both civilian and military contexts over that period. It is striking perhaps to refer to the fact that, on commencing his medical career in 1976 as a volunteer paramedic until before he graduated in 1981 as a medical practitioner, he had attended more than 100 fatal accidents and incidents as a first responder. Clearly motivated by that experience, he has been at the forefront of education for people who are most vulnerable—as we know, young people—to these sorts of events befalling them.

In 2004, Dr Griggs conceived of, designed and funded, I understand, a program that he described as Roads2Survival. The RAA's Street Smart High program continues that kind of practical demonstration of bringing these things home to young people in a real way with a view to reducing the incidence of road trauma through these aspects that are the subject of the bill.

I also want to recognise the contribution on that day of Eli Murn, who as a young man was involved in a very serious road accident incident in the Adelaide Hills some years ago. He was very brave in presenting to that group, demonstrating the personal consequences that that incident has had on his life; he was left severely injured. He spoke with great force to those children and others of us who were present. Many schools attended on that day, both government and non-government, and I am sure that, like me, they went away very much reminded of the real consequences that can flow from careless drug and dangerous driving.

As I indicated, I will refer to clause 9 of the bill. I draw particular attention to it because it is directed at practical measures designed to deter these kinds of events. Clause 9 of the bill will introduce the capacity for the court to make an order recovering money for the costs that are incurred by enforcement authorities for taking steps, including:

(a) apprehending the defendant;

(b) conveying the defendant to a police station;

(c) keeping the defendant in custody until trial;

(d) medically examining the defendant;

(e) facilitating the taking of a sample of the defendant's oral fluid and providing for the presence of a police officer;

(f) facilitating the taking of a sample of the defendant's blood and providing for the presence of a police officer;

(g) any oral fluid analysis of a sample taken of the defendant's oral fluid;

(h) any blood test of a sample taken of the defendant's blood.

Those costs being able to be recovered are another practical step to ensure that, just like confiscation and destruction of a vehicle, just like pecuniary penalties and just like the prospect of being imprisoned for a significant period of time, there are real consequences for drug, careless and dangerous driving. There is always more to do in this space. Road safety is a paramount responsibility of government. We should continue to do all we can. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:39): I would like to make a small contribution in support of this bill. Getting good public policy in any situation is often a very difficult task, and often you need to have a consistent message about public policy outcomes. In the current health debate we are having about vaccination, the mixed messaging and different messages we get do not lead to good public policy outcomes.

The reason I raise this is that in the time Labor was in government for 16 years—when we did an enormous amount of work in road safety areas, which the member for Elizabeth has outlined already so I will not repeat what he has said—what we heard from those who are now government members was other messages, so mixed messages undermined what was good public policy in terms of making sure we had good outcomes in road safety.

I can recall quite vividly that when we introduced various measures and talked about the five major things that caused crashes, etc., and deaths on our roads—the fatal five—the answer from members on the other side was, 'No, the roads are just poor.' That was their answer. So they sent this message out: 'It is not about driver behaviour. It is not about a whole range of things.' The answer was, 'The roads are poor.'

When you look at your record in terms of road safety, if you look at the results on our roads this year and in past years, clearly you have not done a good job in that regard. It is so sad that the now members of the government and then opposition could not do the right thing at the time and support the government of the day on those important single messages that we had to get out. As I said, getting good public policy requires a united front. It really does require a united front, particularly when it comes to road safety, and we certainly did not get that support from the then opposition. At every opportunity they would actually undermine the very important message.

One of the most important messages is about speed. Irrespective of the underlying cause of an accident or a crash, whether it is inattention, whether it is alcohol, whether it is drugs, the difference in speed is important because it is the difference between whether it is a minor accident or a fatal accident. Speed is the factor that determines that, and that is just simple physics.

At the time, I can recall that a number of members—one who later became Minister for Transport and I hate to say it but I think one is now the minister for road safety—would often undermine that message that we tried to get across: speed kills. When we used to go on the road to talk to communities about why speed kills, you had to not only deal with perhaps the misapprehension of the community but you had the Liberal opposition at the time undermining that road safety message.

In contrast, we are supportive of what the government is doing here because we see this as good policy. It is important because we need to drive our road toll down. This year's road toll is just horrendous and when you think about the number of people affected—apart from people losing their lives, which is sad enough, and the number of families affected by it—it just makes it even more damaging to our communities.

I think road safety is important and hopefully one day in the not too distant future, when government members become the opposition again, they will remember this and make sure that we do have a consistent message about road safety, that we do support the experts in this area and their advice, and we make sure that we keep our road toll down and we keep people alive on our roads.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:43): I rise to strongly support this bill and its aim to make our roads and communities safer. When I doorknock in the electorate of King it is clear that road safety and crime are matters that are most important to people living in my electorate, and that is why it is critical that the community's expectations are reflected in our legislation.

I thank the Minister for Police, the member for Hartley, for introducing a steady stream of legislative changes to get tough on people in our community who break the rules, and to do everything we can to make our community safer. This includes working with police to deliver better safety outcomes. The Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill is the next step as part of a suite of measures, implemented since 2018 by the Marshall Liberal government demonstrating our strong commitment to road safety.

Between 2015 and 2019, speed was a contributing factor in 29 per cent of fatal road crashes in South Australia. During the same period, 23 per cent of drivers and riders who lost their life on the roads tested positive to drugs. I repeat that: 23 per cent of drivers and riders who lost their life on our roads tested positive to drugs.

On 24 June 2021 the Criminal Law Consolidation (Driving and Extreme Speed) Amendment Bill 2021 passed the parliament. It introduced tough new laws to deal with dangerous road users who drive at extreme speeds. Extreme speed occurs when a vehicle travels over the speed limit by 55 km/h or more when the speed limit is 60 km/h or less, or 80 km/h or more when the speed limit is more than 60 km/h.

With the penalties for extreme speed now in line with community expectation, there is a need to strengthen the penalties for other driving offences such as drug driving, excessive speed, reckless and dangerous driving, and driving whilst disqualified. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the Marshall Liberal government is unapologetically committed to making sure South Australian roads are as safe as possible. The Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill will ensure that road users who selfishly put other South Australians at risk are removed from the road as quickly as possible and penalised in line with community expectations.

Let us talk about the current laws relating to drug driving and the intention of this amendment bill. Currently, there is no instant loss of licence for drug driving. If a driver returns a positive roadside drug screening test, an oral fluid sample is then collected and sent to Forensic Science SA for analysis. If the analysis returns a positive result, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles then advises the driver that their licence is disqualified for three months, if the driver elected to expiate the offence.

This results in a loss of licence not being issued for 28 days after the initial testing. The bill will allow police to issue a three-month instant loss of licence if a positive roadside test is returned. This will ensure that people reasonably suspected of drug driving are removed from our roads immediately, making our roads safer. Importantly, SAPOL will have discretion as to whether the instant loss of licence should be issued at the roadside or whether the circumstances indicate further testing is required.

Now let us talk about the intention of this amendment bill in relation to speed. Excessive speed occurs if a driver speeds by 45 km/h per hour or more over the speed limit. Currently, a driver can only be issued an instant loss of licence for excessive speed if they have first been issued an expiation notice for the same offence. The bill enables SAPOL to issue a six month instant loss of licence for the offence of excessive speed regardless of whether the offence is expiated or the driver is being charged.

The bill also introduces a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment if the offence is committed in aggravating circumstances or if it is a subsequent offence. Currently, a roadside instant loss of licence for reckless and dangerous driving is not able to be issued. The offence is not expiable, and offenders must be prosecuted. The maximum penalty is currently two years' imprisonment. The bill enables SAPOL to issue a 12-month instant loss of licence at the roadside for reckless and dangerous driving. The bill also amends the maximum penalties for reckless and dangerous driving.

Regarding driving whilst disqualified, currently the maximum penalties that apply for offenders who drive whilst disqualified are, for a first offence, imprisonment for up to six months or, for a subsequent offence, imprisonment for up to two years. The bill will strengthen the consequences and penalties for these offenders who have already put other road users at risk and are wilfully ignoring their disqualification.

Currently, an instant loss of licence notice can only be withdrawn if the driver concerned applies to the court, which can then only lift or reduce the period for which the instant loss of licence applies. To enable swift correction to instant loss of licences in circumstances where errors have been made, such as when offenders provide false details at the roadside, the bill includes provisions that will enable SAPOL to withdraw and reissue instant loss of licences.

My community tells me that community safety is paramount, and the Marshall Liberal government and their changes aim to reduce criminal behaviour through efficient, effective policing. I am told drug driving is increasing, and we need to deal effectively with this issue now. I strongly support the Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill, and I thank the member for Hartley.

This bill makes progress to improve road safety. There is more to do, but on this side we are working closely by listening to the community, working with police and, in my electorate, addressing hooning and road dirt bike riders. This bill helps address one of the root causes of some the worst behaviours on our roads, and I strongly support the bill and thank the member for Hartley and commend it to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:51): I rise to speak in support of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill, which has been so well outlined by the member for King where we want this bill to be used into the future. I will not go into some of that detail again, but I would like to correct the record and the assertions of the member for Light. It is just outrageous that, in his words, we do not understand road safety on this side of the house, when we saw for 16 years in opposition—and I was in this place for 12 of those years—the regions totally devoid of road upgrades, infrastructure upgrades and work—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Really?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond has the call.

Mr PEDERICK: —we have had to catch up with a $17.9 billion upgrade of infrastructure right across this state. When I hear the interjections of the other side, when I know members on the other side have had to ask members on this side where certain towns are in the regions, if they are going there—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: —and that's a fact; talk to the member for West Torrens—and where they are going out in the regions because they have absolutely no idea where they are, apart from the member for Giles. I give him credit, as he is one member who does live in the regions.

To talk about the myth that we do not looking at road safety—and during my time here, when I was serving in opposition and saw roads downgraded to 100 km/h within 100 kilometres of the city—

Mr Brown: Put them back up!

Mr PEDERICK: We're getting them back up, absolutely. We are doing that, yes, and I will tell you about that in a moment. These are roads completely neglected by Labor, like the Murray Bridge to Mannum road, the Wellington to Langhorne Creek road and other roads, all within 100 kilometres of Adelaide.

Labor decided that, instead of spending money upgrading roads, it would just downgrade the speed limit. We saw that on two major connector highways through my electorate—the Browns Well Highway and the Ngarkat Highway—that connect from Loxton in Chaffey and from Pinnaroo in my electorate, down to Bordertown, where we are still completing that work on the Ngarkat Highway. I am very proud to see that as part of the eight-road upgrade across the state that we committed to before we came into government in 2018 as the Marshall Liberal government.

Out of that initial $75 million that was allocated for those eight roads, the Ngarkat Highway and the Browns Well Highway took $37 million of that. Most of that—that 200-kilometre length of both those roads—was shoulder sealing work and also some guard rail work. So essentially it is 400 kilometres of shoulder sealing.

Thankfully, there is a stretch, about 10 to 15 kilometres outside Pinnaroo on the Browns Well Highway, that needed to be completely rebuilt, and it was. I appreciate the department and the Minister for Transport for the work we did out there. We had to increase the budget by $5 million to make sure that all the works on those roads got done.

It is easy when you do not travel on these roads, like those on the other side, to just say, 'We will pull the speed limit back 10 km/h.' What they do not understand on the other side is that that has an impact on road safety as well: the fatigue of driving long hours on country roads. Certainly on this side of the house, not unlike other country people, there are members who drive anywhere from 50,000 kilometres a year to 100,000 kilometres a year. That is not unusual.

For a lot of country people, when you are spending three, four, five and more hours a day on the road, that little bit less time is less time for you to go to sleep while you are driving. My constituents could not understand that roads that were previously marked at 110 km/h—thinking, 'Well, hang on. It just doesn't meet the current road standards. Yesterday they were 110 km/h and the next day they are 100.'

I am so proud that as a government we have made the investment to make these roads safe, and we are still continuing to build this infrastructure across the state, whether it is the Horrocks Highway or the Riddoch Highway, which I travel on quite often down towards the South-East, down through Willalooka, that is getting much-needed upgrades as well.

We have highways and roadworks right across, whether it is connecting Clare, or whether it is connecting to Port Augusta. I am certainly proud of our commitment in looking at the duplication of the Swanport Bridge, with $5 million to be spent on the work that needs to be done there, and also the duplication of the highway out to the Mallee Highway turnoff, out towards the Dukes Highway, past The Bend Motorsport Park.

It has been too long since we have seen major work, as far as duplication work goes, done on the Dukes Highway. My property at Coomandook is split by the Dukes Highway and the railway line to Melbourne. It does need duplication. It needs duplicating, and I know the Victorian crews keep heading closer this way with the process from their side of the border.

What I saw many years ago in opposition was that there was $100 million; there was $80 million of federal money as part of that. We saw what could have been far better outcomes with that money being spent on the Dukes Highway by duplicating a stretch of it. What we got—yes, it was an improvement, but it could have been a lot better.

I made that point at the Public Works Committee. I said, 'Well, here we are. We are putting in more overtaking lanes on the fourth busiest highway in Australia. We are putting a lane down the centre—I think it is about 1,200 millimetres wide—but it's not the ideal fix.' That is something else that needs to be looked at into the future.

It is not all about slowing down vehicles to have road safety. That is important. What people need to understand, especially in the bush and in the regions, is that the speed limit signs are a guide; you do not have to drive at the speed limit. But you also need to make sure, as a government, that the investment goes into those roads so that we can get there in a safe way and in a timely way.

When you live in an area like mine, you see the results of fatigue, where those vehicles have gone under trucks or gone into trees, and sadly sometimes it is people who are determined to take their own life. There are multiple measures that need to be taken to confront road safety, and they all need to be done. It is too simple to say, 'We will just keep reducing speed limits.'

When we came to government, we presided over the lowest road toll with road safety measures that we put in place in 2018, the first year of our government. We have been working on road infrastructure upgrades, whether it is, as I said, regional road upgrades and the massive work being done at Port Wakefield in the member for Narungga's electorate, getting that intersection fixed at Port Wakefield, or whether it is the great work connecting the communities of Yorke Peninsula through to Adelaide and making that intersection safe, that road section where people either go to Yorke Peninsula or they head up towards Port Augusta or other areas. There are massive works getting done there. Certainly, the duplication of the Joy Baluch Bridge in Port Augusta is more work that is being done to make our roads safer.

Other work we are doing is in regard to the South Eastern Freeway. Up and down the freeway there have been bitumen upgrades, right up towards Murray Bridge and Callington. Certainly, we are aware of the many millions of dollars—tens and tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars—being invested in the bottom end of the freeway from Crafers down to the corner at Glen Osmond Road, Portrush Road and Cross Road.

Yes, it can be frustrating, but it does take time. It is a road that is open all the time, and there are a lot of 60 km/h journeys at the moment. At the end of the day, it is making the road far safer with those road treatments and bitumen upgrades. Certainly, the third lane opening through to Stirling from Crafers is another essential upgrade in what we are doing for road safety in that area.

Other works we have done and other works we have committed to for road safety are the heavy vehicle bypass that is in place up through Murray Bridge, Mannum, Sedan and up to the Halfway House Road corner on the Sturt Highway, which brings anything bigger than a B-double. They have to go around that way into Adelaide. That can be justified by the bigger trailers, whether they be the B-triples, the B-quads, the two-trailer road trains or the AB-doubles, getting that freight task to go around the top. Just by the nature of the regulations in place, there is so much more freight going to the north of the city and coming in.

Also, on top of that, we are committing $200 million alongside the federal government for the Truro bypass, which will be a major asset moving forward with that freight task, bringing it in to the city. Yes, road safety is front of mind. There are so many things we have to have in place. Obviously, with this legislation we are looking at the drug and alcohol testing, looking at the extreme speeding penalties. They all need to be taken into consideration.

What we need to do as a community and as a government is make sure that the appropriate spending and infrastructure are in place to make it safer for everyone. It is not just about reducing speed limits. It is about making roads safe, putting in that investment, so that people can travel those long distances and get to where they need to go in a timely manner. I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:05): I want to thank the members of this place for their contribution to what is certainly a bipartisan issue, a very important issue, and that is of course to reduce lives lost and serious injuries on our roads. I thank them for their support of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving and Careless or Dangerous Driving) Amendment Bill 2021.

To address some of the members' comments, the member for Heysen, my friend, spoke about the deterrent effect that these laws will have. He is absolutely right. I think everything we do in this state to deter negative behaviour on our roads is a good thing. As the member for King alluded to, we have brought a suite of measures—legislative measures but also campaigns and stronger messaging—to ensure that we take an educational approach to drive positive behaviour in the road safety space.

I thank the member for Hammond, who I know is very passionate about road safety. I pay tribute to his efforts in this space as well. I am looking forward to hearing from the member for Elizabeth and I look forward to the opposition supporting what I think is a very vital piece of legislation. I thank members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: My first question is on clause 1, but I indicate, as I said in my second reading contribution, I will not be unnecessarily delaying this bill. I understand there are amendments to get through, which I received only very recently, so that may take up the committee’s time a little. My first question is a traditional one at clause 1. Can the minister list the parties who were consulted and whether any concerns were raised by any of those parties or others, and will the government table those responses?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for Elizabeth for his question. In terms of parties that were consulted, the regular bodies such as obviously SAPOL, DIT, and the AGD were consulted. I believe there was correspondence with the Law Society of South Australia. I believe, in part, they have raised certain issues around section 45B. I am prepared to furnish the member for Elizabeth, if he has not got that, with a copy of that correspondence between the houses so that he can have a look at it.

Mr ODENWALDER: That then is the extent of the consultation—no further parties were consulted? Were any other unsolicited submissions received?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I believe there was also consultation undertaken with the Courts Administration Authority and I believe we have had a small amount of correspondence that has come in via the ministerial office as well. Certain people have obviously raised some concerns. I would not call it drastic opposition but they certainly have raised concerns.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr ODENWALDER: I note that the minister referred to the Law Society's submission of 21 September and I do just want to get the government's view on the record about a point made by the Law Society, and I will quote from clause 8 of their submission:

Members of the Society's Criminal Law Committee advise that the threshold for the offence of careless driving under the Act is very low and note that most offences under the Australian Road Rules could come within its ambit. The offence is discretionary in nature with respect to the power of police to determine what constitutes 'careless driving'…The Society is accordingly informed that the offence of careless driving is widely variable and usually does not involve intent on the part of the driver. In this regard, the Society highlights the clear distinction between deliberately dangerous or reckless driving behaviours and the offence of careless driving, and suggests a comprehensive understanding of this distinction is essential in interpreting the bill.

I wonder if the minister could outline what type of careless driving he sees coming under the ambit of this new provision.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The bill simply adds 'aggravated circumstances' to the types of careless driving. I should also point out to the member for Elizabeth that I have since also been advised that obviously we did consult with other stakeholders—for example, those represented on RUSAC. Whilst we are generally aware of certain small concerns regarding these issues, our priority is very clearly road safety and also obviously keeping people safe on the road. We have also received correspondence from the Alcohol and Drug Foundation. From our point of view, the priority has to be road safety. That obviously requires some sort of balancing act but we would certainly lean more so in favour of road safety.

Mr ODENWALDER: It is a bit tangential, but I would ask the minister if he could outline what the submission—from Drug and Alcohol Services, did you say?—what was the nature of their submission?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: This whole issue around presence versus impairment was, on my interpretation, raised in response to medicinal cannabis, for example. Our position—and I am looking at a TGA text in front of me here—is that we have to be really clear that patients should not drive or operate machinery whilst they are being treated with medicinal cannabis. Our answer, again, is obviously prioritising road safety.

There may well be some discussion between the houses. I believe some of our friends in the upper house might also have something to say, and they may attempt to move certain amendments, but the position of government is very clear: a patient should not drive or operate machinery while they are being treated with medicinal cannabis. We are happy to have that argument with some of these bodies. We respect their points of view but, from our point of view, our priority is road safety and that is our very clear position.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 6, line 41 to page 7, line 7 [clause 6(3)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) the relevant period ends—

(i) when proceedings for the offence to which the notice relates are determined by a court or are withdrawn or otherwise discontinued; or

(ii) in any event—at the end of 6 months from the commencement of the relevant period.

I will briefly outline this amendment. Section 45B(6) is being repealed by clause 6 of the bill, as it has no work to do. There is no need for an excessive speed ILOL to be automatically cancelled if the driver elects to be prosecuted. Police will have the power to withdraw the ILOL if it is made out to the wrong person; that is, if the driver gives false details at the roadside, or if the offence was detected by camera and the driver nominates another. The driver will also have standing to challenge an excessive speed ILOL if they are contesting the charge. These are the amendments in clause 11 of the bill, so there is no need to refer to the automatic ILOL cancellation process in section 45B(6).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I move:

Amendment No 2 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 8, after line 38 [clause 9(2)]—After paragraph (e) insert:

or

(f) section 47I(7) or (14).

The bill will allow police to recoup pre-trial investigation expenses from a defendant who is found guilty of a prescribed offence. I believe the member for Heysen very eloquently spoke about this issue. Those offences include the substantive offences of driving under the influence, driving with prescribed concentration of alcohol and driving with presence of a prescribed drug. They also should include all the refusal offences, including a refusal to submit to a blood test, which is not accounted for in repealed section 47D(1).

The opportunity has been taken to include the offences of refusing to submit to a blood test. It could be that the driver refuses to submit at the last minute after being apprehended and conveyed to hospital, and obviously, the member for Elizabeth would appreciate this. This could be a waste of police and health resources, and it is our view that this should be recouped from the offender if found guilty of refusing to submit to a lawfully administered test.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, do you have questions regarding the amendment?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, the amendment and the clause itself, I guess. This is not by way of criticism, but I am just wondering if the minister could tell us before the passage of this bill what other offences did a similar provision apply to where pre-trial costs could be recouped.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I am advised that certain refusal actions, if you like, do exist; however, refusing a blood test at the moment is not currently in the legislation. We think the amendment will allow SAPOL to recoup pre-trial costs—we think that is fair enough—from a defendant if they are found guilty of driving under the influence, driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol and driving with the presence of a prescribed drug.

The costs include additional drug testing if the defendant contests the offence. We also think that this will serve as quite a deterrent from people doing the wrong thing. Obviously, the more we can encourage people to do the right thing pre-trial, the more expeditiously things will move through the court system. Hopefully, it does not get to the court system, hopefully people do not get caught for drug driving in the first place, but these are all measures that we think will assist in the road safety space.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate that, minister, and this is in no way a criticism of the measure. I will be supporting this clause and the amendment. I am just wondering, and perhaps I was not clear, what other offences, whether within the Road Traffic Act or indeed the criminal act (you are the Minister for Police), attract the defendant having to pay pre-trial costs to SAPOL, if found guilty.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: This sort of thing already exists for DUI, PCA and also drug driving, I am advised.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think this is the point at which we ask these questions, and the minister has already touched on this, but I just want some further expansion on this matter. I wonder if you could outline exactly what the government's and SAPOL's current advice is regarding medicinal cannabis, both in the current regime and in the regime we are contemplating here.

As I outlined in my second reading contribution, THC is clearly different from other drugs in that it lasts in the system for longer. Some people may have a legitimate reason to have THC in their system. I wonder if the minister can provide me with some detailed advice about why the current regime should not be changed and why this new measure is necessary, particularly in regard to medicinal cannabis, firstly.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. Our very strong message and clear position is that a patient should not be driving while being treated with medicinal cannabis. THC is THC is THC, and we are obviously testing for presence.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is the extent of SAPOL's advice to you regarding medicinal cannabis?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I thank the member for the question. Very clearly, we have no way of differentiating medicinal cannabis from, say, recreational cannabis. The onus is very clearly on the individual, because we test for presence. The TGA position is very clear when it comes to this sort of thing. Again, I understand that there are opponents of this, and that will be vigorously debated, probably in the other place, but that remains the current advice and I support that at the moment.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am at no risk of running out of questions. I want to cover a bit here. I understand from what you are saying that the TGA's advice is that THC is THC and that any presence of THC could lead to an impairment. It does not necessarily lead to impairment but it has a risk of leading to impairment. That is the TGA's position and that is the basis of the government's position.

That is not a question; I hope I am reiterating what you said so I do not waste a question here. Is the minister aware of any mechanism elsewhere in any other jurisdiction which does not just test for the presence of THC but can test for varying levels or various types of THC, if they indeed exist, or is it simply presence that we can test for?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Not to my knowledge. It is just the presence of THC. But I reiterate to the member for Elizabeth that the TGA clearly warns medicinal cannabis users to not drive or, in fact, operate machinery while being treated with medicinal cannabis. It is quite clear in their advice.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Elizabeth, I will give you one more. I will count the second as a clarification.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, sir. My question is obviously related to previous answers. When you were framing this bill, when you were talking to SAPOL and other stakeholders, was any consideration at all given to any exemption or defence regarding the detection of medicinal cannabis and the resulting immediate loss of licence? Was it contemplated at all?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: The answer to whether any consideration was given to any exemption or defence regarding the detection of medicinal cannabis and the resulting immediate loss of licence is no. It is very simply and clearly a road safety measure, and it is a very much needed one. When testing in recent times, SAPOL has detected that out of every seven road users one has drugs in their system. Compare that to one in 111 when it comes to alcohol. This is a significant road safety issue and that is why these strong measures are being undertaken.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 and 12 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: I move:

Amendment No 3 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 11, after line 5—Insert:

1A—Amendment of section 79B—Alcohol and drug dependency assessments and issue of licences

(1) Section 79B(2)(a)—delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) an applicant for the issue of a licence—

(i) has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence or learner's permit in this State, or in another State or Territory of the Commonwealth, as a consequence of a drug driving offence or an alleged drug driving offence (whether committed, or allegedly committed, in this State or in another State or Territory of the Commonwealth); or

(ii) has had their licence or permit cancelled under section 81D(2)(a); and

(2) Section 79B(2)(b)—after 'period of disqualification' insert:

or the cancellation of the applicant's licence or permit under section 81D(2)(a) (as the case requires)

1B—Amendment of section 81AB—Probationary licences

Section 81AB(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) Without derogating from any other provision of this Act, if a person applies for the issue of a licence following—

(a) a period of disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence imposed in prescribed circumstances; or

(b) cancellation of the person's licence under section 81D(2)(a),

a licence issued to the applicant is subject to the following conditions:

(c) a condition that the holder of the licence must carry the licence at all times while driving a motor vehicle on a road pursuant to the licence;

(d) a condition that the holder of the licence must not drive a motor vehicle or attempt to put a motor vehicle in motion on a road while the prescribed concentration of alcohol is present in the holder's blood, or a prescribed drug is present in the holder's oral fluid or blood.

These amendments ensure that a person who has received an ILOL for drug driving with a child in the vehicle undertakes a dependency assessment and also ensures that a person returning from an ILOL suspension returns on a probationary licence. Both these requirements are already in force for people who are disqualified. However, an ILOL under the current bill results in a suspension rather than a disqualification.

These amendments simply mirror the requirements for suspension as currently exist for disqualification. That is all they do.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question is very simple, and again I do not seek to delay this bill: could the minister outline clearly the difference between a suspension and a disqualification?

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Obviously, a suspension applies to a licence and a disqualification is an order against the person. However, if you have a licence SAPOL can only suspend at present.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.