Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the House of Assembly desires the concurrence of the Legislative Council.

No. 1 Clause 10, page 8, lines 10 to 17 [Clause 10(1), inserted subsection (1)]—

Delete 'attend an assessment clinic for the purpose of submitting to an examination to determine whether or not the applicant is dependent on alcohol unless the applicant satisfies the Registrar, on the basis of the report of an approved assessment provider or such other evidence as the Registrar may require, that 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:

submit to an examination by an approved assessment provider to determine whether or not the applicant is dependent on alcohol

No. 2 Clause 10, page 9, lines 2 to 9 [Clause 10(1), inserted subsection (2)]—

Delete 'attend an assessment clinic for the purpose of submitting to an examination to determine whether or not the applicant is dependent on drugs unless the applicant satisfies the Registrar, on the basis of the report of an approved assessment provider or such other evidence as the Registrar may require, that 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:

submit to an examination by an approved assessment provider to determine whether or not the applicant is dependent on drugs

No. 3 Clause 10, page 9, lines 18 to 21 [Clause 10(3), inserted subsection (4)]—Delete 'that—

(a) that the applicant has undertaken a sufficient amount of appropriate treatment for dependency on alcohol; and

(b) the applicant is no longer dependent on alcohol.' and substitute:

that the applicant is no longer dependent on alcohol.

No. 4 Clause 10, page 9, lines 27 to 30 [Clause 10(3), inserted subsection (5)]—Delete 'that—

(a) that the applicant has undertaken a sufficient amount of appropriate treatment for dependency on drugs; and

(b) the applicant is no longer dependent on drugs.' and substitute:

that the applicant is no longer dependent on drugs.

No. 5 Clause 10, page 10, lines 32 to 34 [Clause 10, inserted subsection (9)]—Delete subsection (9)

No. 6 Clause 20, page 14—Delete the clause.

No. 7 Clause 34, page 20, after line 40—Insert:

(5) Schedule 1, clause 8(1)—delete 'subclause (2)(a)(ii)' and substitute 'subclause (2)(b)'

(6) Schedule 1, clause 8(2)—delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) The results of a drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or blood test under Part 3 Division 5, an admission or statement made by a person relating to such a drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or blood test, or any evidence taken in proceedings relating to such a drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or blood test (or transcript of such evidence) will not be admissible in evidence against the person who submitted to the drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or blood test in any proceedings other than—

(a) proceedings for—

(i) an offence against this Act; or

(ii) an offence against the Motor Vehicles Act 1959; or

(iii) a driving-related offence; or

(iv) an offence against the Controlled Substances Act 1984; or

(b) if the test or analysis occurred in connection with the person's involvement in an accident—civil proceedings in connection with death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle involved in the accident (including proceedings under section 116 or 124A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 for the recovery from the person of money paid or costs incurred by the nominal defendant or an insurer).

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

That the House of Assembly's amendments be agreed to.

The government supports the amendments that were made within the House of Assembly. I seek leave to table answers to questions from the member for Schubert, taken on notice during the committee stage in the other place, and also table a response to the Hon. Kelly Vincent regarding some queries that she had.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: It is extremely disappointing that the opposition has decided to agree with the Hon. Kelly Vincent on the issue of medicinal cannabis. In doing so, we believe the opposition is sending a message to the community that, if you are using cannabis, then you are okay to get behind the wheel of a car. I call upon the opposition to listen to common sense, including the advice of the AMA, and adhere accordingly. I call upon the opposition to support the bill received from the House of Assembly and not insist on amendments that were made in this place, so that we can take positive action on drink and drug driving in South Australia.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The Liberal Party intends to insist on its amendments. It has the desire, if it pleases the will of the chamber, to take the bill into deadlock and have a discussion in that forum with members of the House of Assembly to see if agreement can be reached. We would seek to go into deadlock, if it is the will of the chamber, in good faith.

It appears that the main sticking point with the government is the amendments of the Hon. Kelly Vincent. At this stage, they are a simple defence and not as expressed in the particular manner that the minister has done, which suggests that it is an approval to drive under the influence. Because it is in the nature of a defence, we wish to continue the discussions with the House of Assembly on this matter, so our position has not changed at this point in time.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government does not support the Hon. Andrew McLachlan's amendments. Advice from clinicians is clear that participation in a treatment program does not ensure that a person is not dependent on alcohol or drugs. Repeat drink and drug driving must be assessed as non-dependent before a person is able to obtain a driver's licence. Under existing provisions, that would happen as a part of the application to regain a driver's licence.

Mr Stephan Knoll has said in the other place that the government has a great desire for the drug dependency test to be the be all and end all when it comes to assessing people in relation to their drug-taking behaviour and in relation to them being able to get their licence back. However, Mr Knoll misunderstands the purpose of the dependency assessment. It is not intended to be, as he has said, 'the sole arbiter of whether someone is going to offend again'.

Some people reoffend due to poor decision-making and driving behaviour. It should not be assumed that they are dependent on drugs. The dependency assessment is a way for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to determine whether a habitual offender has an underlying medical condition that makes them unfit to hold a driver's licence. Where drivers are not dependent on drugs but are committing repeat offences as a result of poor driving behaviour, the higher penalties the government is proposing are intended to act as a deterrent.

Under the existing processes, if a dependency assessment finds that a person is dependent, they must either wait until a favourable assessment is achieved—the minimum time is three months—or satisfy the registrar via other evidence that they are no longer dependent. Requiring the assessment of treatment undergone by the driver, as well as an assessment of whether they are dependent on drugs or not, does not add any value to the register and would be an unnecessary requirement.

Clinicians advise that the amount of treatment required by a client varies immensely, some needing little to no treatment and some not responding to very intensive treatment. The problem is that, with defining a sufficient amount of appropriate treatment, treatment is only sufficient if the person is subsequently found to be non-dependent, so the key is an assessment of the outcome of the treatment.

The assessments investigate both physical and psychological symptoms of alcohol or drug dependency. Blood samples and a urine drug analysis are undertaken for a drug dependency assessment. The mental health symptoms of dependence are assessed using the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This is a widely accepted guideline for the diagnosis of mental health disorders, and is produced by the American Psychiatric Association and used widely in Australia for diagnostic criteria for mental health disorders.

Under current legislation, only the corporate health group is approved by the Minister for Health to provide these dependency assessments. In this bill, the government has adopted a new definition for an improved assessment provider, which will enable someone to seek a dependency assessment from a broader range of qualified practitioners, as defined in the bill.

Mr Stephan Knoll has said in the other place that he wants to give drug drivers greater access to rehabilitation programs. I have already undertaken to provide repeat drug drivers with information about treatment services in South Australia. Drivers will be given this information, and they will be encouraged to contact the government's Alcohol and Drug Information Service. This is a confidential telephone counselling, information and referral service to assist them to gain access to appropriate health services.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to assist you, Mr Chairman, in determining where the numbers lie in relation to this issue, the Greens have not received any new information that has convinced us to change our mind from the position we took some time ago, so our position is that we will not support the House of Assembly amendments, and will continue to support the original amendments passed by the Legislative Council. We also support taking this to a deadlock conference. We urge all parties to that conference to approach it in good faith, and see whether it cannot be resolved.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It will come as no surprise to members of the chamber that I am also very happy to enter into a deadlock conference to enable this discussion to continue. I am very concerned—very concerned—about road safety, and that is exactly why I do not want to see people forced to drive under the influence of opiate-based drugs that can have a much stronger impact on impairment to drive than many cannabis products. I do not want people driving under the influence of serious migraines, nausea or chronic pain, which can be very distracting when driving, and that is why we need to find a way to move forward with this.

So, let's move into deadlock, have a nuanced, respectful debate and finally find a way forward for what is a legal medical substance to finally give those people forced to use that substance a respectful way forward. I ask the minister whether he could ascertain whether the information that was sent to the road safety minister in the other place on 10 November, I believe, has been acknowledged. I refer to the research sent from Dr Michael White in this area. Has it been received and read by him?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have not changed my position on this matter, so I will not support the amendments from the House of Assembly.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 9

Noes 12

Majority 3

Motion thus negatived.

The following reason for disagreement was adopted:

Because the amendments are not in accordance with the views of the opposition and certain members of the crossbench.