Medicinal Cannabis and Road Safety

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-167030

Hansard session: Fifty-Eighth Parliament, First Session (58-1)

Medicinal Cannabis and Road Safety

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (17:01:16):

I move:

That this House:

(1)Supports the legitimate use of medicinal cannabis and recognises the benefits it provides to patients across New South Wales.

(2)Supports the longstanding principle that any changes to road safety laws should be based on scientific evidence.

(3)Notes that 20 of Australia's leading trauma surgeons and clinicians have warned that Labor's proposed three strikes drug driving policy is not supported by the medical evidence and that the proposed 50ng/mL THC threshold has no scientific basis as a road safety measure.

(4)Calls on the Minns Labor Government to listen to Australia's leading experts and abandon its three strikes drug driving policy.

I speak on a matter that goes to the very heart of public safety in New South Wales. Road safety is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government. Every road rule, enforcement regime, roadside operation and safety campaign exists for one purpose alone: to reduce the risk that someone leaves home in the morning and never returns. That is why changes to road safety laws should be approached with caution, supported by evidence and grounded in science. Yet we are witnessing the exact opposite from the Minns Labor Government, which is prepared to weaken drug driving laws without the scientific evidence to justify it.

At a time when New South Wales is experiencing its worst road toll in years, Labor has chosen not to strengthen road safety laws, not to increase deterrence and not to improve enforcement. Instead, it has chosen to embark upon a dangerous experiment that experts warn could cost lives. The people of New South Wales have every right to ask why, because the proposal does not appear to have emerged from a recommendation by police, a request by road trauma experts or an independent scientific review. Instead, it appears to be the product of a political arrangement designed to satisfy a narrow political constituency, regardless of the consequences for the millions of motorists, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians who use our roads every day.

That is why Labor has found itself in the extraordinary position of having to defend a policy that many of the State's most respected medical experts have publicly condemned. The policy is deeply flawed. Under Labor's drug driving proposal, medicinal cannabis users would be subject to a three strikes regime whereby a driver detected above the Government's proposed THC threshold would receive a warning on the first occasion and another warning on the second occasion, and would only face penalties after a third detection. The absurdity of that position becomes obvious the moment it is compared with any other road safety offence.

No government would allow a driver caught drink driving to receive two penalty-free warnings before consequences are applied. No government would permit a speeding motorist to be detected twice before enforcement action was taken. No government would tell the public that repeated breaches of road safety laws should simply be overlooked. A loved one killed by a drug driver does not get three chances. Labor is gambling with road safety. What makes the proposal even more alarming is the complete lack of scientific consensus underpinning the threshold Labor has chosen.

The Government has proposed a threshold of 50 nanograms per millilitre of THC in oral fluid and is presenting that figure as though it has some established scientific basis. The problem is that experts say that it does not. The consensus statement signed by leading clinicians across New South Wales clearly states that the proposed threshold is not supported by the medical evidence. Those expert clinicians have issued a stark warning to the Government, stating:

The proposal to create a 50 nanogram-per-millilitre oral fluid THC threshold as an exemption from drug-driving offences—accompanied by a three-strike warning system that permits two above-threshold detections before any penalty applies—is not supported by the medical evidence.

They go further. The statement says the proposed threshold "is not endorsed by any Australian or international peak clinical body". Those are extraordinary words because they come not from politicians but from some of the most respected medical professionals in the country. Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the entire saga is that Labor still cannot explain the scientific basis for its own policy. Our roads Minister has acknowledged that the Government is continuing to work through the evidence. Think about that for a moment.

The SPEAKER:

I call the member for Newcastle to order for the first time.

Mr MARK COURE:

The Government announced the policy first. The evidence is apparently being worked out afterwards. That is not evidence-based policymaking; it is making policy first and searching for evidence later. It is backwards and irresponsible. The Opposition has repeatedly called on the Government to release the evidence it claims supports the changes. To date, it has refused. If Labor is so confident in the science, why not publish the science? If Labor is so confident in the policy, why are the State's leading trauma surgeons pleading with it to withdraw the bill? The reality is that the scientific evidence surrounding THC and impairment is vastly different to the evidence surrounding alcohol. Some individuals may experience significant impairment at relatively low concentrations, while others may not.

Unlike alcohol concentrations, THC concentrations cannot reliably predict whether a person is safe to drive. Yet Labor is proposing to rewrite road safety laws based upon precisely that assumption. That is not science; it is guesswork. In the past 12 months, New South Wales has recorded 357 fatalities on our roads, up from 343 in the previous 12 months. At a time when road fatalities are rising and families are already paying the price of a worsening road toll, the Government proposes to weaken drug driving enforcement without being able to demonstrate that the change is safe. That is reckless and irresponsible because, when it comes to road safety, one mistake can be fatal. The people of New South Wales cannot afford Labor's dangerous drug driving gamble.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON (MaitlandMinister for Regional Transport, and Minister for Roads) (17:08:21):

— The Government opposes the motion as currently drafted. It is worth noting that, the day after the State budget was delivered, Opposition members have not even thought about debating anything in the budget papers. It is also worth noting that the member for Oatley is debating legislation that has not yet been introduced into the Parliament. He is telling people what is in the bill, but he has not even seen it. We have not released the bill. It will not happen today.

The SPEAKER:

The member for Oatley will come to order.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON:

We have made it very clear that we have been working on this legislation since the NSW Drug Summit 2024, where we listened to the community and advocates. A recommendation from that summit was to develop a defence for patients who are prescribed medicinal cannabis. Let me be very clear: Roadside drug tests will not pick up benzodiazepine, which a lot of people use for anxiety management; Endone; morphine; or opioids, which a lot of people use for severe pain management. They will pick up cannabis, which many patients use to treat severe pain, cancer, nausea, seizures and a whole raft of other medical conditions. The members opposite made that treatment legal 10 years ago and left it on the statute book.

The legislation as it currently stands in New South Wales has a presence offence if an oral swipe detects THC in a person's bloodstream but does not go to impairment. Who set the level of 50 nanograms for detection? The members opposite did, but they are now saying that they do not want that limit for anyone. They will try to make up an impairment limit even though they acknowledge there is no evidence to support it. Patients who need to use medicinal cannabis to manage a medical condition can have it prescribed to them by a doctor and then take their script to Service NSW and register it to their licence. They then do an online training session about the impact of medicinal cannabis and have a conversation with their doctor about driving. The online session from Transport is based on expert evidence. If they are picked up by a random roadside drug detection bust and are over the 50‑nanogram limit then they are taken off the road for 24 hours, which is just like it is today—there has been no change to that.

The Opposition would instead put cancer patients, multiple sclerosis patients, epilepsy patients and patients suffering from extreme pain, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder through the court system, where a judge would rightly say that they had a script and did not show any signs of impairment and throw it out of court. We should not put people through that. Let us give them a chance to go back and talk to the doctor and understand what is happening. They will have two chances to do that. If there is a third detection then that is it—we give them a three-month licence suspension and a $704 fine.

The shadow Minister told an untruth and misled this House. The Opposition has not supported the significant road safety reform legislation that we have put through this House. Some Opposition members actually voted against it at every stage, which is a disgrace. They will not give patients who are taking a medical substance prescribed by a doctor the same dignity they give to people on Endone, benzodiazepine or valium after a surgery. They are treating patients as criminals because of a presence offence. They are so ignorant. When I was in the shadow Cabinet for seven years, I never had the temerity to oppose a bill that I had not even looked at. The folder in my hand has representations from constituents in the electorates of the members opposite. I wonder what they are going to say? They write me letters asking for help, but the members opposite deny it. What hypocrites.

Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst) (17:13:35):

I support the motion put forward by my parliamentary colleague the member for Oatley. This important motion calls on the Minns Labor Government to abandon its proposed three strikes drug driving policy. That is all it does. I note that the Minister spoke about hypocrisy, but we are talking about keeping people safe on our roads. The road toll in New South Wales has been horrific over the past three years. In the past 12 months, 357 people have died in our roads. That is not just a number; it is family members who have had their lives turned upside down. People of all ages have been impacted.

Two-thirds of fatalities occur in the regions. Two-thirds of the fatalities are someone known by the community—somebody who belongs to a sporting group, somebody who may be a member of a service organisation or a member of the local community. Our first responders have to attend those various incidents on the road. Currently, 174 lives have already been lost on our roads this year. Compare that with the 168 lives last year—and I have said it was horrific last year and the year before that. The road toll is already up by six compared with the same time last year.

The Government is looking at changing road safety laws to allow people to drive with THC in their system. It is currently illegal for people to drive with THC in their system because it impairs their judgement when driving. I tell members that making that change will be a recipe for disaster. It will see more lives lost on our roads. Government members should not say to me that it will be good for people in the regions. They say, "They have to drive." It is not good for people in the regions because more people will die on our roads. THC gives drivers slower reaction times; makes drivers take longer to brake or respond to hazards; reduces tension and concentration; makes it harder to focus on multiple things at once, such as speed, traffic and pedestrians; and gives drivers poor coordination, impaired judgement and drowsiness.

Research in this State finds that driving under the influence of THC increases the chance of crashes and fatalities. We have been warned about it by experts. Some 20 of Australia's leading trauma surgeons and clinicians have already raised their concerns with the House. They are not political activists or commentators; they are doctors who deal with the devastating consequences of road trauma every single day. They wrote a joint letter warning Labor that its proposed three strike policy is not supported by medical evidence and that the proposed THC threshold of 50 nanograms per millilitre has no scientific basis as a road safety measure. Those are not my words; they are the words of some of Australia's most experienced clinicians and trauma specialists. When experts of that calibre raise concerns, the Government has a responsibility to stop, listen and reconsider.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the fact that the Minister for Roads has acknowledged that the Government is still working on establishing the evidence that the changes are based on. The policy has been created without taking into account the need for an evidence base. I now raise a couple more things. I have spoken to police officers who are dumbfounded by the policy. They stood on the side of the road with me and said, "What is the point of pulling people over and testing them for drugs in their system if this Government is going to let them off anyway?" People will not just be let off on one occasion; they get three occasions before they are not allowed to drive. Police feel that they will be wasting their time if the policy is implemented and that they will have no way to keep people safe on our roads. They told me that if the three strike policy passes, people will die.

The SPEAKER:

The member for Summer Hill will come to order.

Mr PAUL TOOLE:

People I have spoken to in the regions have never been drug tested. Therefore, there is no guarantee that people will be tested, and more lives will be lost.

Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (17:18:50):

I speak in opposition to the motion. It is very interesting that the day after the State budget was handed down, members opposite chose a public interest debate that is completely unrelated to it.

Transcription in progress…