Drug Driving

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about the subject advice he took or was provided with in regard to medical cannabis and drug driving laws.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As we know—while it is not on our Notice Paper, it is in the other place—medical cannabis and its interaction with drug driving laws is currently a topic on legislators' minds in this state. However, it is something that has been well studied across the world. Indeed, according to the American Journal of Public Health published on 20 December 2016, a study that analysed 28 states that had legalised cannabis for medical use over the period from 1985 to 2014, looking at 1.2 million traffic fatalities nationwide, found that deaths dropped 11 per cent on average in states that had legalised medical cannabis. The figure was more striking within the 25 to 44 age group, with 12 per cent of deaths dropping over that period of time.

The study was a surprise to its author, Julian Santaella-Tenorio, who is from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York, but it was no surprise to the author of a previous study of 19 states, which was published in 2013 in the Journal of Law and Economics, where Benjamin Hansen, the author of that study, from the University of Oregon, stated that an 8 to 11 per cent decrease in traffic fatalities had occurred over the period of that study.

My question to the minister is: what advice did he take with regard to his statements in the media that, while well-intentioned, providing exemptions for medical cannabis was inconsistent with road safety objectives? Did that advice include this study? Did he refer, in fact, to the Department of State Development, which was provided with that study that I have just referred to on 8 March this year?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:10): I thank the honourable member for her question. No, my statements were not informed by that study. I'm not familiar with that study, but I'm happy to avail myself of that information if the Hon. Tammy Franks wishes to pass it on to my office. There were other pieces of information though, that did inform my remarks and continue to inform the government's position. Let me share with the chamber some statistics that I think the Hon. Mr Wade was seeking earlier this afternoon, which I am now in a position to be able to share—that's how, hastily, I am keen to be able to get back to the Hon. Mr Wade.

In the last five years, 66 drivers and riders killed tested positive for drugs in the state of South Australia. This is more than the number of drivers or riders killed who had an illegal blood alcohol content. Of those killed, 48 tested positive to cannabis, either on its own or in combination with other drugs, and of those 20 tested positive to THC alone. In those cases, there were no other drugs or alcohol present.

Of the 20 fatalities, 16 were deemed to be responsible for the crash. They are 16 real incidents with real lives on the line. They are startling and concerning statistics. They are real-life examples of people having lost their lives as a result of being under the influence of cannabis, to the extent that it impaired their driving and put themselves and other road users at risk.

The other instance I can cite is the advice that I have received from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research. The Centre for Automotive Safety Research comes out of the University of Adelaide. It has an outstanding reputation, not just in South Australia, but also domestically around the country. Their advice, to the best of my recollection, is that the only safe way to approach the policing of cannabis having influence on drivers is through a measurement of THC within the system and then having a zero-tolerance approach to the presence of THC within the system. The reason why their advice suggests that is because all the evidence shows that even a very small presence of THC within the system of a driver can result in significant impairment to the extent that it affects their ability to be able to drive a car safely.

When it comes to medicinal cannabis, it does bring into this debate a human element. This government is committed to do everything it reasonably can to ensure that those people who are suffering from conditions that may be able to be relieved through medicinal cannabis get the opportunity to do that, with the appropriate checks and balances in place. That is an entirely separate question from the issue of driving. The issue of road safety is a unique question in its own right. That is what we are being asked to contemplate in the context of this drug driving bill.

It is unfortunate that there are a range of factors and parameters that are beyond the control of anybody in this parliament, such as things like the technological issue that was discussed earlier. In my opinion, and in this government's opinion, our objective when contemplating the drug driving bill is to look at it in the context of its objective, which is to improve road safety. When we contemplate questions brought before us, specifically the question of road safety, it is the government's view that the only approach to take is the one that the government reflects in the legislation, which is that, as it stands, simply having a one-size-fits-all approach in respect to the consumption of medicinal cannabis and its effect on drivers brings with it inherent risk.

Having said that, I thank honourable members for the contribution they have made to this debate up until this point. If honourable members have other pieces of information, as I know the Hon. Kelly Vincent has, that they want to provide to the government that will help us collectively be better informed in making this decision, then that will be gladly welcomed.