Bills

Statutes Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving) Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message No. 310.

(Continued from 28 November 2018.)

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

That the alternative amendments made by the House of Assembly to amendment No.1 be agreed to.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I should clarify the Liberal Party's position. There has been a meeting of minds between the parties, led by the minister in the other place and the shadow minister. As a result of their discussions, there has been a recasting of certain provisions that are set out in the schedule of alternative amendments that incorporate drug rehabilitation and tying it to the dependency test. Whilst it is different from the amendments of the Liberal Party, it finds favour with the Liberal Party in the spirit of compromise.

The search powers are no longer being proceeded with, which also finds favour with the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party had distinct difficulties in relation to search powers in this context. A casualty of those negotiations was the defence in relation to medical cannabis, and whilst these found favour with the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party had to compromise to allow these amendments to go forward. The shadow has had a conversation with the Hon. Kelly Vincent and, if he is fortunate enough to be appointed the minister, will explore the impacts of those substances on driving—if the Liberal government is fortunate enough to form government.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I find it hard to put on the record the extent of my disappointment today. When this house left the debate on this bill, my understanding was that we were going to enter into a deadlock regarding my amendments regarding medical cannabis, and that was to ensure that we could have a nuanced and responsible debate. For whatever reason, I understand that procedure has not been followed. I will not go into detail about that exactly, because I am waiting for some feedback from our very hardworking Clerk on exactly what did occur.

Certainly, what we do know is that just last Friday, the member for Schubert, Mr Knoll, in the other place was seeking my participation in a media segment about the bill and the related amendments. Indeed, he went on to advocate for the rights of medical cannabis users to be able to drive when they were stable and medically safe to do so. Here we are today, Wednesday as it is now, and that support is no longer there.

The Liberal Party has changed its tune, or perhaps deals have been done—I do not really know at this point—because I hear that the bill is due to be brought on and things are moving suspiciously fast. I will say that neither the Labor Party (the government) nor the Liberal opposition have the stomach for this debate, the stomach to stand up for people who are vulnerable and the stomach to stand up for people who are using a legal medical substance in this state.

Since we have legalised it, we do need to move the debate forward, and that is all I was seeking to do. The fact that the government is happy to legalise the use of medical cannabis in this state, but not to provide any actual opportunities for people to continue living their lives while doing that, shows that they are happy to, in some respects, build the walls of a house but not fill it with any furniture and not lay down any foundations. It is deeply disappointing. As it stands, there is no room for that nuanced debate to continue at this point, and I am deeply disappointed by that.

I know that those many constituents who have come to me, not just recently but over the years, seeking some maturity, some guts, from the government and the opposition on this issue, are deeply, deeply disappointed. I think there are some good things that have happened with regard to the powers to search amendments being struck out and rehabilitation no longer being added. I welcome that, but I do not think it is too much to ask, given we have a legal medical treatment in this state, that we have a mature and nuanced debate and one that actually follows proper process, not where deals are done after the fact to railroad that debate. Call me crazy, but I do not think that is too much to ask.

I would like to take this opportunity to deeply apologise to those people who have been let down by the cowardice of not only this government but now also this Liberal opposition. The Liberal opposition can say that they are happy to continue this debate if they win government at the next election, but there are a lot of ifs in that debate and a lot happens during an election campaign. So, I say that I am very sorry to those people who have once again been let down and been railroaded because maybe their issue does not have the lustre or the shine that is appropriate for an election campaign. However, it certainly is a health issue and something we need to future proof and move forward with. I am deeply disappointed and ashamed that we have not taken advantage of that opportunity here today.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think, as we are in committee, we get more than one go at this. The Greens share the Hon. Kelly Vincent's disappointment. The disappointment comes from the fact that I had thought we were having a sensible conversation about a range of issues, not least of which was how we treat people who are taking prescribed substances and the interaction of those new laws that have passed with these drink and drug driving laws. So, it is disappointing that, at the 11^th hour, the parliament has squibbed it and we are not having that debate. The provisions that this council debated at some length have been pulled from the bill, and the Liberals have gone along with that. That is not to their credit, and it is a great disappointment to the Greens as well.

The only positive I can take out of this is that the lengthy discussion we had about the relationship between people who had been assessed as dependent on alcohol and the treatment that those people might receive to reduce or eliminate their dependence appears to have been finetuned somewhat. It does seem to be an improvement on what we had before, but that does not take away from the disappointment that comes from the old parties getting together to cancel out the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments.

There is one new development that has occurred since we debated this last, and it is a question that I will put to the minister. I recall that when we were debating this bill originally, it was put to the government that there were a range of other drugs that could be tested for, but were not tested for. One of those was cocaine. Since we debated this bill last time, we have seen in the media that the government is now proposing that serving police officers will be tested for cocaine. It might take a little while to answer it, but the question I have is: if, all of a sudden, the state now has the capacity to be testing police officers for the presence of cocaine in their system, why are we not testing drivers for the presence of the same drug?