Drug Driving

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Minister for Road Safety in relation to cannabis use and road safety.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: This is mine.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I don't think so.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In July, the council debated the drink and drug driving bill. The Hon. Kelly Vincent moved amendments to allow medically authorised medical use of cannabis to be a defence to a positive test to drug driving. Given the lack of clarity in the information available during that debate, my questions to the minister are:

1. How many serious accidents or road fatalities occurred in South Australia in the past five years where the driver responsible for the accident had cannabis present in their body and only cannabis?

2. If this data is not available, will the government fund research to identify the prevalence of such behaviour?

3. Does the government's drug testing regime for drivers identify the specific levels of cannabis present in a driver's body?

4. Can the government's drug testing regime for drivers detect the difference between THC found in cold-pressed medical cannabis oil, which I am advised is non-psychoactive, and THC found when a recreational user heats cannabis for use, which I am advised is psychoactive.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, be a bit quiet, we don't want to interrupt the conversation of Mr Ridgway up there; so please speak in a low voice!

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:32): I wouldn't want to interrupt the Hon. Mr Ridgway's campaigning plans for Waite that he is actively canvassing.

The PRESIDENT: More likely his next dinner arrangements.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I thank the honourable member for his important question. Of course, there is a bill before the lower house at the moment that speaks to the government's proposed reforms regarding drug driving legislation in this state. There are a few components of the Hon. Mr Wade's question, and I will seek to address both of them.

The first component of your question, I believe, was in relation to statistics that may exist regarding the number of people who died on South Australian roads with THC or drugs within their system. I am happy to say that my advice is that, between 2011 and 2015, 22 per cent of drivers or riders killed on South Australian roads tested positive for THC, methamphetamine, MDMA or a combination of these drugs. I know your question was specifically in respect of cannabis. I am happy to take that question on notice. I believe I have seen statistics that seek to distinguish the occurrence between the respective drugs that the drug driving bill covers. However, I will take that question on notice and get the specific information.

What I can say is that there is plenty of evidence, including statistical evidence, that shows that a significant proportion of South Australians who are dying on South Australian roads do have THC in their system. The evidence and the analysis conducted by experts, including South Australia's world-leading Centre for Automotive Safety Research that comes out of Adelaide University, does say that THC has been a contributing factor in road deaths in South Australia as a consequence of the impairment that THC imposes upon drivers.

The second component of the Hon. Mr Wade's question was in regard to the levels. As was stated during the course of that debate, one of the unfortunate facts with regard to drug testing arrangements that exist, I understand, globally is that there is not currently a test that can be done roadside that measures for the level of THC within a system, as distinct from what is the case with blood alcohol testing. That is unfortunate, because if there was a mechanism to be able to test for the level of THC within the system, there would presumably be an ability to better calculate the level of impairment that a driver might be suffering as a result of the level of THC within their system.

In the absence of such a test, we are left with a more blunt instrument when it comes to drug testing on our roads, and that is a test that measures the presence of THC within the system. That being the technology that is available to us, naturally the government's view is that we need to ensure that legislation is consistent with the technology that is available to us at the moment. I do not have data at hand that talks to the level of THC that is in the system in terms of those roadside tests.

With regard to the third component of the Hon. Mr Wade's question, which is in terms of measuring different types of THC, my understanding is that the roadside test that is conducted by SAPOL as it stands, and that is going to continue to be the case, merely tests for the presence of THC. I am not aware of a particular test having the capacity to differentiate between different types of THC. It is merely testing for the presence of THC.

I understand, as was discussed during the course of that debate in the parliament, in this chamber, that there are some cannabis products, particularly those that are used for medicinal purposes, that do not result in THC being within the system. If that were the case, that a patient of a doctor were to be prescribed a form of medicinal cannabis that did not result in THC going into the system, then that person would not need to be concerned about delivering a positive drug test result on the basis of that medicinal cannabis consumption.

Of course, though, I am also aware of the fact that there are some forms of medicinal cannabis that do indeed put THC into the system. There is a concern on the part of the government, on the basis of the advice we have received, including from medical associations, that the presence of THC, even in very small quantities, can result in impairment on the part of a driver. That is the basis on which the government has expressed concerns, notwithstanding the good intent of the Hon. Ms Vincent's amendments that were successfully passed by this chamber. That is why the government maintains its concerns around the amendment that was passed by the chamber.

Nevertheless, the parliamentary process will play out its course, but with the current technological constraints that exist, and other parameters and issues that exist around the use of medicinal cannabis, the government remains concerned about that particular proposition. However, if there are medicinal cannabis products that do not deliver THC into the system, my advice is that such patients would have little or no reason to be concerned.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: Supplementary.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I am the primary questioner.

The PRESIDENT: Yes. I will get to you next, the Hon. Ms Vincent. The Hon. Mr Wade.