Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-167554

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

Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 25 June 2026.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (19:00:48):

I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. I make abundantly clear from the outset that the Opposition will oppose this legislation. The reason for our opposition is very straightforward: Whenever this Parliament considers changes to road safety rules, particularly those concerning driver impairment, the paramount consideration must always be the safety of the millions of people who use our roads each and every day. That principle has guided governments of every political persuasion for decades because, unlike many other policy areas, mistakes in road safety policy can have immediate and irreversible consequences.

The issue before us is not whether medicinal cannabis has a legitimate place in modern medicine. It does. Nor is the issue whether people suffering from chronic pain, epilepsy, cancer-related illnesses or other serious conditions deserve access to treatment prescribed to them by their doctors. Of course they do. The issue before us is whether the Government has provided sufficient evidence to justify weakening longstanding drug driving laws and whether the Government can honestly say that those changes will make the roads of New South Wales safer. The answer to both questions is no.

What the Minns Labor Government is proposing is extraordinary. The Government is proposing that a person who is registered under this new scheme and who tests positive above the prescribed threshold for THC should be permitted to receive two warnings before any meaningful penalty is imposed. In other words, a driver can be detected once and receive a warning, be detected a second time and receive another warning, and only upon a third detection will they be deemed to have committed an offence. At a time when the Government tells us repeatedly that road safety is its highest priority, it is difficult to understand how it can justify introducing what is, in effect, a three-strikes regime for drug driving.

The Opposition simply cannot support such an approach because it does not believe the Government should ever compromise when it comes to protecting human life. The most troubling aspect of this legislation is that the Government is asking the Parliament and the people of New South Wales to place their faith in evidence that it has steadfastly refused to release. Again and again, the Opposition has asked the Minister to provide the scientific evidence upon which the changes are based. Again and again, the Government has refused. Again and again, road safety experts, clinicians and stakeholders have raised serious concerns, only to be met with silence.

If the evidence supporting the reforms is as compelling as the Government claims, why has it not been released? If the science is settled, why is the Government refusing to subject its conclusions to public scrutiny? Under this bill, medicinal cannabis users who hold an unrestricted licence will, under certain conditions, be exempted from the current drug presence offence, and a new offence will be created for those medicinal cannabis users who have THC in their oral fluid or blood at or above a maximum concentration level defined as 50 nanograms per millilitre in oral fluid and 3.5 nanograms per millilitre in blood.

However, the simple truth is that there remains no universally accepted scientific standard for determining impairment caused by cannabis. Unlike alcohol, where decades of scientific research have allowed governments to establish clear and enforceable limits, there is no equivalent consensus when it comes to THC. The effects of THC vary significantly from one individual to another and are influenced by a wide range of factors, including dosage, the method of administration, the strength of the product, an individual's metabolism, body weight and the frequency with which the drug is consumed. Twenty of the State's leading trauma surgeons, emergency physicians and clinicians from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Royal North Shore Hospital, Liverpool Hospital, John Hunter Hospital and St Vincent's hospital have publicly opposed this legislation on more than one occasion. They argue:

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—is not supported by the medical evidence.

Even the Government's own website acknowledges that THC affects reaction time, concentration, coordination, judgement and decision-making. The advice on the NSW Health website is that cannabis medicines can cause impairment and affect fitness for driving. Even the Minister's own website lists marijuana usage as a problem. The NRMA opposes this legislation, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons opposes this legislation, the Australian Automotive Association opposes this legislation and Drug Free Australia opposes this legislation. They are the experts who spend their working lives in road safety and treating the victims of road trauma each and every day. They are the people who witness firsthand the devastating consequences of poor decisions, impaired judgement and dangerous behaviour behind the wheel. They are the people whom the Government should have been listening to from the very beginning.

Yet, despite all of those warnings, the Minns Labor Government has chosen to press ahead regardless. The Government has made a conscious decision to disregard the advice of trauma surgeons, emergency physicians, road safety advocates and countless other experts who have devoted their careers to understanding the causes and consequences of road trauma. Instead, the Government has chosen to align itself with the long-held agenda of The Greens and the Legalise Cannabis Party. The Minns Labor Government has decided that the views of The Greens and the Legalise Cannabis Party carry more weight than the views of trauma surgeons, emergency physicians, road safety experts and the families who have lost their loved ones on our roads.

This debate is about whether the Parliament of New South Wales is prepared to weaken longstanding road safety laws in circumstances where the scientific evidence remains uncertain and where many of the State's leading experts have openly warned against doing so. The Government would have us believe that this legislation represents a carefully considered balance between individual circumstances and community safety. However, if that were truly the case, one would have expected the Government to embrace scrutiny, welcome further consultation and engage openly with those who hold differing views. Instead, we have seen precisely the opposite. The Government has refused to release the evidence upon which it claims to have relied. The Government has refused to work constructively with the Opposition. The Government has ignored the pleas of road safety stakeholders.

When governments choose party politics over evidence, politics over expertise and convenience over caution, the community ultimately bears the consequences. Even more concerning is the release of secret research by Transport for NSW into medical cannabis use. According to those reports, 45 per cent of medical cannabis users admitted that they had driven within six hours of consuming cannabis, despite this being the period during which impairment is believed to be at its greatest. Some 54 per cent admitted that they had not used the medication in the manner it had been prescribed, whether by increasing the dosage, increasing frequency of use or using it for purposes beyond those originally intended.

Those findings should have prompted greater caution from the Government. Instead, they appear to have produced precisely the opposite response. Over the past 12 months, 359 people have tragically lost their lives on the roads of New South Wales. During the preceding 12-month period, that figure stood at 337. That means the road toll is moving in the wrong direction. Every one of those deaths represents a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife, a friend or a colleague whose life has been cut short. Every one of those deaths represents a family that will never be the same again. Drug driving is now the second leading contributing factor in fatalities on our roads, ranking ahead of fatigue, drink driving and seatbelt offences. According to the NRMA, one in every 10 drivers subjected to roadside testing in New South Wales during 2023 returned a positive result for illicit drugs.

The Minns Labor Government would have us believe its reforms represent best practice, but they do not. In fact, another Australian jurisdiction has recently undertaken one of the most comprehensive reviews of medical cannabis and drug driving laws in the country and has reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Queensland Government commissioned an independent review into medical cannabis and driving, examining the latest medical evidence, roadside testing technology, prescribing practices and overseas models. Its review concluded what we already know: Unlike alcohol, cannabis has no predictable relationship between the amount of THC in a person's system and their level of impairment.

It also found that saliva testing can detect recent cannabis use but cannot reliably determine whether a driver is actually impaired. Blood testing was dismissed as impractical, particularly for regional communities, while a medical defence for prescribed cannabis users was found to be unworkable because police cannot verify compliance with prescriptions or accurately assess impairment during a roadside stop. After considering all of the available evidence, Queensland reached a simple conclusion: The science is not there yet. That is the critical difference. Queensland looked at the evidence first and decided not to change the law. The Minns Labor Government has decided to change the law first and hope the evidence will justify it later.

The Government should be strengthening deterrence, strengthening enforcement and strengthening public confidence in our road safety laws. Instead, tonight it is doing the exact opposite. Road safety policy should never be experimental. History shows that the reforms which have saved the most lives—from compulsory seatbelts to random breath testing and mobile phone enforcement—were introduced because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated they would reduce road trauma. Road safety is not the place for political experiments.

The people of New South Wales expect their governments to exercise caution, to follow the evidence wherever it leads and, above all else, to place public safety first. Unfortunately, the Minns Labor Government has failed that test. The Opposition will continue to support policies that save lives, protect families and keep our roads safe. Until the Government releases the evidence, consults properly with stakeholders and addresses the serious concerns that have been raised by experts, clinicians and the broader community, we cannot and will not support this legislation.

Labor is gambling with road safety. Road safety must always come first and should be based on evidence and enforcement. It should not be experimental. The Coalition does not support reform that weakens roadside enforcement or creates uncertainty around drug impaired driving. As mentioned before, according to the NRMA, one in 10 drivers tested positive for illicit drugs during roadside testing in New South Wales in 2023. As we know already, drug driving is now the second leading contributing factor in road fatalities in New South Wales, ahead of fatigue, ahead of drink driving and ahead of failure to wear a seat belt. For those reasons, we oppose the bill. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "be now read a second time" and inserting instead "be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety for inquiry and report".

Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (19:16:57):

I support the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. Medicinal cannabis is legal. It was legalised by those opposite a decade ago, yet for 10 long years medicinal cannabis patients have been left in limbo. Many people in both Houses have supported medicinal cannabis, such as the late Paul O'Grady, MLC, and my predecessor the late Bryce Gaudry, the former member for Newcastle. In his later years of life, Bryce was living with pancreatic cancer and using medicinal cannabis to minimise his pain and stop his constant vomiting and nausea. He sacrificed his ability to drive so that he could live with minimal pain. Under the current arrangements, a person can take a range of prescription medications that may impair their ability to drive. But even though medicinal cannabis is legal, and has been for a decade, patients who take it to treat a variety of illnesses are treated differently. At the moment, a patient can follow the advice from their doctor who has prescribed them medicinal cannabis, take their medication, be completely unimpaired but still face penalties because traces of THC remain in their system. That is not fair, and that is why we want to change it.

There has been overwhelming support in my electorate of Newcastle for this key reform. For years I have received emails and calls from constituents expressing how unfair it is that people using legally prescribed medicinal cannabis must choose between living with dignity and without pain or risking a fine every time they get behind the wheel. The bill is simple: It treats medicinal cannabis patients like any other patient who takes legally prescribed medication. Patients will be required to pre-register with Transport and provide confirmation of a valid prescription through secure existing channels that are already used for road safety and licensing purposes, and it will need to be kept up to date. A driver's status as a registered user will be recorded on their driver's licence record and digital licence so that it can be verified by police at the roadside.

If registered users are found to have cannabis in their system, it will go to a second screening. If positive, they will face a 24-hour driving ban to ensure they do not continue driving while potentially impaired. Like all other motorists, if police believe them to be impaired and a road safety risk at the time, they may remove the driver from the road network. Their sample will then undergo further testing. If they are found to be above the THC threshold, they will receive two warnings before fines and licence sanctions. If they are below the THC threshold, no further action is taken. In short, if a patient is unimpaired and within legal limits, they will not be criminalised for the simple action of taking their medicine. The legislation has been developed with safety at its core and will not compromise road safety. It has been supported by road safety groups as they know it is an improvement on how things currently stand.

To be eligible, medicinal cannabis patients will be required to complete a mandatory education program about cannabis and driving. The bill does not take away the offence of driving under the influence, or DUI. If police pull a motorist over for reckless driving or if they are seemingly impaired by cannabis, or any other illicit drugs or high levels of alcohol, that motorist will feel the full extent of the law. Medicinal cannabis patients are not asking for special treatment. They are asking to be treated the same as any other patient who takes legally prescribed medication. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina) (19:21:52):

The Greens support the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. We welcome the Government's movement on this, but we think it is very conservative. We would like to see some changes, which I will flag, but we support the bill. As a regional MP, it was interesting to listen to the basis of the Liberal Party's opposition to the bill. I remind Opposition members that we are talking about a very small group of people. We are talking about medicinal cannabis patients. There is no suggestion that random drug tests are not happening. I do not know where they get the idea that people are somehow getting off. There will be the same level of drug testing as there has been. In my area, it is huge. It is a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our area tends to get targeted. I will be interested to see if that changes.

People get around those tests. There are about 70,000 people on a particular Facebook page telling others where the tests are. They are obviously not all medicinal cannabis users. People in my area feel that terror of losing their licence. If they are impaired, they should be penalised, but the bill is about people who are not impaired. The status quo is any trace, any presence, of THC is penalised. We know that is absolutely fraught. The case has been prosecuted well and truly. I will not belabour it. But I get upset hearing politicians suggest that medicinal cannabis patients are sitting at home wanting to drive under the influence. They are absolutely not. They are mostly taking their medicine to sleep. Opposition members are probably referring to recreational cannabis users. Those users will still be caught up by random drug tests and face the full weight of the law and the prohibition on cannabis, which is another issue. The idea that the bill is going to lead to a lack of safety on the roads is ludicrous. The Greens welcome the legislation. I particularly welcome it in the Northern Rivers. As I say, we are over‑represented in the criminalisation of medical cannabis patients.

As the Minister for Transport said today, 10 years ago Parliament very cautiously changed the law to allow medicinal cannabis to be prescribed. For all intents and purposes, that is still heavily protected by doctors in the way that they prescribe. We are talking about 85-year-old cancer sufferers. We are talking about people who have broken their back in five places. My father, when he was dying of cancer, got enormous relief from THC, but he had to acquire it illegally at the time. I have seen it firsthand in my own family. Dad would not dream of taking it and driving. I do not believe that cannabis patients do. If they do and they are impaired, there are consequences. We think that the consequences are reasonable to an extent.

However, we are not comfortable with the idea that a person can be targeted and that it comes up with an X and they are identified on their digital driver's licence with a licence condition code. That seems over the top. That is the same system for drivers who wear glasses. Alcohol has been mentioned. When I was a kid, people drank and drove all the time. We needed to correct course, but we did not ban alcohol. There was not a zero‑substance approach. The idea that that approach should be prosecuted here with medicinal cannabis is weird. It is inconsistent. I am not even going down the path that alcohol is a drug itself. I leave my contribution there. The Greens support the bill. We will continue to raise concerns. We believe that those concerns can be addressed through regulations.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (19:26:53):

I speak in support of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. Just last year I co-sponsored a private member's bill seeking to address this blind spot in the law. Therefore, I support commonsense reform that treats medicinal cannabis users with dignity. I believe the bill strikes a reasonable balance between road safety and the reality that medicinal cannabis is legal and increasingly common, relied on by many to function in their daily lives. The reform, which has been long called for, closes a loophole that leaves users of medicinal cannabis containing THC at risk of being automatically penalised for using their legally prescribed medication. It means the presence offence will not automatically apply to registered medicinal cannabis users.

The bill will require drivers, excluding L‑plate or P-plate drivers and commercial drivers, to enrol as registered users with Transport for NSW, provide their prescription and complete an online education program. If a registered user is stopped at the roadside and THC appears in their system, they are still excluded from driving for 24 hours while their sample is tested. A three-strike system will apply so that they are not punished until a third detection above the maximum threshold within a two-year period. That gives those people the opportunity to talk to their doctor, to their health professional, about safely adjusting their dose and driving behaviour after medicinal use.

The bill does not allow for impaired driving, and rightly so. That is still an offence with serious consequences. Rather, it alters the pathway to a penalty for registered medicinal cannabis users and mandates safeguards, including driver education, a 24-hour driving ban following roadside detection, ongoing monitoring of the scheme, and, sensibly, a review of its operation after 12 months. The exclusion of provisional drivers and commercial drivers from the scheme, as well as those who are not authorised to drive, is another sensible precaution.

I acknowledge the concerns around privacy raised by medicinal cannabis users, highlighted by the member for Ballina. They will be required to register with Transport for NSW to access the exemption. I understand that is required to list a driver's exemption on their licence, which can be checked at the roadside rather than going through a separate process, such the courts, to confirm they are a prescribed medical cannabis user. It is also necessary to enforce mandatory driver education. I call on the Minister to explain in her reply speech how privacy will be protected and respected under the scheme.

Some 10 years after cannabis was legalised for medicinal use in this country, we must enact laws that reflect the legality and reality of its use. The bill means that registered medicinal cannabis users will not be penalised for driving unimpaired. They will not be forced to choose between their medicine and mobility. I acknowledge that some members of the House are concerned. I listened closely to the contribution made by the member for Oatley on behalf of the Opposition. I do not dismiss all of their concerns. This is a paradigm change. It is a significant step. But while it seems significant, it is also relatively modest and well considered. The Government has not rushed into this. It was somewhat reluctant to be led by the crossbench in this space. It felt that it would be much better to bring a Government bill, to give the matter a high level of consideration.

The Government has approached this appropriately, with all the right considerations for the welfare of not only medicinal cannabis users but also the broader community. Nobody wants to see loss of life on our roads. This decision has not been made lightly. While I acknowledge the concerns raised by Opposition members, I implore them to understand that we all want to see the best outcome for road safety. We have to balance that with the needs of people in our society who have access to legal forms of medication that address the difficulty of their intractable pain. I also acknowledge the member for Sydney and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham in the other place for advancing this reform. I particularly acknowledge the Government for its efforts in taking this on and delivering a well-considered and pragmatic bill as a first step to reform in this space.

Dr MICHAEL HOLLAND (Bega) (19:33:05):

I rise today to support the New South Wales Government's Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. For the first time, our drug driving laws will recognise that some drivers are taking THC-containing medicines under medical supervision. The new law will maintain strong deterrence against drivers who may have used cannabis that is not medically prescribed as well as any drivers using other illicit drugs with or without legally prescribed medicinal cannabis. At its heart, this reform recognises that cannabis medicines are legally prescribed treatments and that approximately 300,000 people in New South Wales have a prescription for medicinal cannabis.

Central to the legislation is that patients must become a registered medical cannabis user and complete a mandatory education program, which will be developed jointly by Transport, Health and the police. This program will be designed to reinforce information provided by prescribers, the vast majority of whom practise their profession and their prescription in a highly responsible manner. It is particularly important for patients because research shows that cannabis can affect driving ability, especially at higher concentrations, and that there is often a low perception of driving risk among medical cannabis users. Through the education program, users will learn how THC affects their driving ability, understand the laws that apply to them and develop strategies to reduce driving risks.

To register and maintain their status as a registered medical cannabis user, drivers must keep their medical cannabis prescription current. This means people will be required to ensure Transport has up-to-date confirmation of a prescription. However, if their registration lapses, they can submit updated evidence of a new prescription. This regular interaction with their prescriber ensures that patients have frequent opportunities to discuss their dosage and any impacts on their driving. This is particularly important for the new warning system. If a registered medical cannabis user receives a warning about high THC levels, they can work with their prescriber to adjust their dosage or timing of use to prevent further positive detections where penalties may apply.

This reform recognises the important role of prescribers in providing guidance about medical cannabis use and driving. It emphasises that patients should work closely with their prescriber, including when starting treatment or changing doses, or if they receive warnings about high THC levels, when they may need to adjust their dosage or timing of use. This is consistent with advice in the national medical standards for assessing fitness to drive. In fact, it is a legislative standard which is greater than is required for other prescription medication which may impair driving, such as benzodiazepines, opiates and psychotropic medications.

To support this reform more broadly, Transport will develop a public awareness campaign. This campaign will complement the education program by focusing on the broader road safety message for all drivers—that any drug, including THC, can affect the skills needed for safe driving—and reinforce that driving while impaired remains illegal. This is a more nuanced approach than our current system. Instead of treating all THC presence the same way, we are establishing an offence more appropriate for registered users. These drivers will likely always have a level of THC, whether detectable through roadside processes or not, in their system. While the current drug presence offence framework will remain unchanged for drivers who are not registered medical cannabis users, this reform creates a clear separation for those using legally prescribed medicines.

Let me be clear: This is not a free pass. Registered users must still meet certain requirements to be eligible for the approach. They must have zero blood alcohol content and have no other illicit drugs present. Importantly, the driving under the influence offence remains for police to enforce where drivers display unsafe driving behaviour or they appear influenced by a drug. That is consistent with current impairment regulation. The screening test and process at the roadside remains the same. If you are detected today, you will be detected under the reforms.

Beyond these legal requirements, registered users are expected to use their medication consistent with medical advice provided by their prescriber. For higher risk categories of drivers, including learners, provisional licence holders and commercial drivers, the current laws will continue to apply. This approach also maintains all current roadside testing procedures. A positive roadside test will still result in a 24-hour driving prohibition, regardless of whether someone has registered as a medical cannabis user or not. Clear information for both the public and prescribers will be important to promote safe driving behaviours and reduce the risk of inadvertent offending. Importantly, if a registered medical cannabis user shows signs of impairment, police retain all their current powers to conduct sobriety assessments and charge drivers who are under the influence. A key aspect of our reform is monitoring its effectiveness. Our 12-month statutory review will assess implementation outcomes and allow us to refine the approach based on real-world evidence.

This reform represents a significant shift in how we approach medical cannabis use and driving—one that better serves patients while maintaining our commitment to road safety. The bill provides benefits for patients, as well as safety and fairness. It recognises medical cannabis as a prescription medication, enabling patients who make safe choices about driving after their medicine use to maintain employment, caregiving responsibilities and independence. The bill maintains road safety protections, with strict safeguards remaining in place, including roadside testing, post-crash testing and enforcement against impaired driving.

The warning system provides a practical compliance framework and allows drivers to adjust medication timing and dosage to remain compliant while driving safely. This is evidence-based policy reflecting growing medicinal cannabis usage trends, and responds to stakeholder concerns raised through formal consultation processes. The people using medicinal cannabis are patients using legal medication. This bill provides a more logical and better clinical solution to drivers using legally prescribed medicinal cannabis than applies to drivers using benzodiazepines, opiates and psychotropic medication. It balances detection and impairment, and allows for clinical adjustment of dosages for patients using a legally prescribed medication and driving. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst) (19:41:05):

I speak in debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026. As has been indicated by Coalition members, we will not be supporting the bill. Medicinal cannabis manages certain medical conditions, but it also has side effects. It impairs concentration and impacts on reaction time. That is why it is a real concern that tonight the Parliament is debating changing legislation to allow people who may be impaired or have slower reaction times to get behind the wheel of a car, especially given the number of road fatalities in the State over the past four years. In 2022, there were 281 fatalities; in 2023, 340; in 2024, 327; and in 2025, 355. It has continued to go up over the past number of years. We are looking at around a 9 per cent increase every year.

This year road fatalities are up to 211 already. At the same time last year, that number was 201. Serious injuries are up. In four of the past seven months, road fatalities were up. In metropolitan areas road fatalities are up. Regional road fatalities are up. Yet we are now putting more lives at risk by proposing to change the road rules in this State. Road safety should be the number one priority. Decisions made in Parliament should be guided by one simple question: Is this going to make our roads safer? Unfortunately, the bill fails that test. The Minns Labor Government says road safety is its number one priority, yet today it is asking the House to support legislation that allows drivers who repeatedly test positive for THC to continue driving after two detections before any penalty is applied. That is not putting safety first; that is gambling with road safety and people's lives.

The Coalition believes road safety should be based on evidence and enforcement, not experimentation. This proposed legislation weakens the effectiveness of roadside drug enforcement and creates uncertainty around drug‑impaired driving at a time when the statistics are moving in the wrong direction. Police officers have even asked me: What is the point of conducting roadside drug tests when positive drivers will be let off with a slap on the wrist time after time? It completely undermines their duties and shows the lack of support they are being given by this Government for the changes.

According to the NRMA—another organisation that opposes this piece of legislation—one in 10 drivers subjected to roadside drug testing in New South Wales in 2023 tested positive for illicit drugs. Drug driving is now the second leading contributing factor in road fatalities across our State, ahead of fatigue, drink driving and failure to wear a seatbelt. Those figures should concern every member of this House. They should strengthen our resolve to make our roads safer. Instead, the Government has chosen to do the opposite. Peter Khoury from the NRMA said:

NRMA has been very strong on this issue from day one and we're here again to just say that we believe this policy is absurd and it belongs in the bin.

This is a really dangerous approach by the New South Wales Government. The measure by which they are determining whether or not it's safe is questionable at best. No one knows what a 50 THC means not least of all the Government or what sort of impact it could have on the people who are taking these drugs and then getting behind the wheel.

The Government's own research shows that this behaviour is dangerous. The majority of people who are getting a script and smoking marijuana, which is what this is, are also using that drug dangerously and against the advice of the doctor. They're mixing it with other drugs. They're getting behind the rules sooner than their doctors tell them to. They're taking more of it than they should and they're taking it more frequently than they should. The Government's own research reads like a horror show and at a time when we're desperately trying to get the road toll down, not just deaths but serious injuries, we now have to deal with this massive own goal.

It sends a terrible message to the public about what we need to do to save lives on our road.

…

This has got to stop. It is beyond comprehension that has gotten this far and to say that the NRMA is deeply concerned … with this policy, is a massive understatement

Research has consistently shown that THC can impair reaction time, coordination, concentration, judgement and decision-making, which are all critical functions required to safely operate a motor vehicle. Even where medicinal cannabis has been lawfully prescribed, the drug itself does not lose its psychoactive properties. In its own advice, Transport for NSW states that medicinal cannabis containing THC can impair driving ability. That is the Government's own advice to motorists. The obvious question is if the Government acknowledges that THC can impair a person's ability to drive, why is it creating exemptions that reduce the consequences for drivers who repeatedly test positive? The answer has not been provided. I note the Minister is in the Chamber. I thank her for listening to our concerns. But she is asking us to pass reforms that strike the right balance when Labor has refused to publicly release the evidence it says supports this policy.

Other members have spoken in this Chamber about drink driving, but we do not have a policy where, if someone is found to be guilty of drink driving, they can have a 24-hour break and then get behind the wheel of a car. That is not how it works. A whole new enforcement system is being rolled out in the State. The legislation has also attracted criticism from respected organisations and medical experts. Twenty of the State's leading clinicians and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons have urged the Government to abandon the reforms. They have questioned the proposed 50 nanogram threshold, arguing it is not supported by scientific evidence and warning that the changes send the wrong message at a time when road fatalities remain unacceptably high. Those concerns should not be dismissed. I put on record what Dr John Crozier, a trauma surgeon, an advocate in road safety and a former chair of the national trauma committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said:

I join with large numbers of Directors of Emergency Departments, acutely aware of the burden on hospitals, well aware of the body bags that crashes on roads in NSW generate every year. If this Bill goes ahead as proposed it will materially contribute to that burden. We will see an increase, not a decrease, in the deaths and the hospitalisations on our roads due to the impaired drivers affected by THC.

…

THC in a driver affects every one of the eight executive functions of the driver. We are about to roll an experiment in NSW that no other jurisdiction anywhere in the world has been prepared to run.

The short notice with which this has been allowed knowledge of by a range of stakeholders who have tried to do their best to work with government steering this legislation has blindsided a lot of us. At the very least it would be prudent to pause and have a greater period of deliberation. On behalf of the doctors, the nurses, the ambulance attendees, we plead for a pause and a more prudent approach to this very vexing concern.

Dr John Crozier is a well-recognised National Trauma Committee surgeon in New South Wales. These concerns should be heard.

I acknowledge again the hard work our police do across New South Wales in conducting roadside drug testing, enforcing our road laws and attending some of the most confronting crash scenes imaginable. They see firsthand the devastating consequences of impaired driving. I thank all members of the Police Force for their dedication and for serving our community. They deserve clear and enforceable laws focused on protecting lives. The Coalition will continue to stand with our police and support them in a time when they are concerned about the changes being made.

The number of roadside breath tests has not been going up every year. I have asked many people in the regions how many times they have been drug tested, and many of them said they never had. Therefore many people could be using THC, never be tested and continue to put their lives and the lives of others at risk on our roads across the State. This is not a risk the Coalition is prepared to take. Road safety is not an area where we should see social experimentation, lower our standards or dilute enforcement in the hope that everything works out. The consequences of getting this wrong will be measured in lives lost across this State. I find it disturbing that, while we talk about road safety, we are introducing something like this. For those reasons, the Coalition opposes the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026.

Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (19:51:10):

The Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Medical Cannabis and Driving Offences) Bill 2026 is about fairness, compassion and common sense. It is about bringing our laws into line with modern medicine while maintaining our unwavering commitment to road safety. Across New South Wales, hundreds of thousands of people now rely on medical cannabis prescribed by their doctors to manage chronic pain, the symptoms of cancer treatment, post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], anxiety, insomnia and other serious health conditions. NSW Health estimates that around 300,000 people have a prescription for medical cannabis. It is a mainstream prescription medicine relied on by patients in communities across our State.

But our laws have not kept pace with that reality. Today a person can take medical cannabis exactly as prescribed by their doctor, be fit to drive and still face penalties because roadside testing detects the presence of THC in their system. The problem is that our current laws test for presence, not impairment. As a result, patients are forced to make impossible decisions between managing their health as advised by medical professionals and managing their daily lives, their requirements for their jobs, their caring and family arrangements and other commitments that in many instances require them to drive.

Like many parliamentarians, I have heard from many patients using medical cannabis: people living with chronic pain who finally found relief after years of suffering; people managing trauma and PTSD who have been able to rebuild their lives because they found a treatment that works; workers, parents and carers who have lived in fear because taking the medicine that has helped them manage those health conditions successfully could cost them their livelihood. These are common stories. They reflect the gap between our medical framework and our road transport laws. This bill is about addressing that gap in a careful and measured way.

Despite the alarmist claims of those opposite, this reform has not emerged magically overnight or in a vacuum. Both the parliamentary inquiry into the regulatory framework for cannabis and the Drug Summit identified the need to address the treatment of medical cannabis patients under current drug driving laws. Let us remember that the Drug Summit brought together patients, clinicians, police, academics, legal experts, politicians from all political persuasions and many community advocates. They came together in the city and in our regions, and the message was clear: Our laws should reflect contemporary evidence and the reality of medical cannabis use, while continuing to protect public safety.

The Government recognises that medical cannabis presents unique challenges. THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis, can affect skills that are required for safe driving, including judgement, attention, memory and coordination. The evidence shows that the effects can vary significantly between individuals. That is why the Government is adopting a cautious and balanced approach, where road safety remains paramount. It is important to understand that the approach we have designed within this bill has a range of limitations to help manage those road safety risks. These include still requiring medical cannabis users to take part in roadside drug testing when requested and in mandatory testing if involved in a fatal crash. That screening test and process will remain the same at the roadside as it is today. We are also still requiring a 24-hour driving prohibition if the driver fails the roadside screening test, responding immediately to that risk.

This scheme also includes opportunities through the new warning letters and therefore the ability for drivers to speak with their medical professionals and adjust their dose and/or the time between when they take their medication and driving. This will actually produce better medical and safety outcomes. We are also limiting the categories of drivers who can register as medical cannabis users and access this penalty approach. For example, P-plate drivers are not eligible for this scheme. This also recognises that, if you are a registered user, you cannot have any other illicit drugs or alcohol present in your system. We will monitor this scheme, and there will be a statutory review of the bill after 12 months, where we will assess the impacts and refine this approach if that is needed. This is a balanced and measured approach and the best way to support patients accessing this important medication that is working for so many people across our State and also to maintain important protections for all people using our roads.

It is unfortunate that many members opposite have chosen to oppose this reform. Their criticism would carry more weight if it reflected what is actually in the bill. I refer them to the extensive list of various opportunities, balances and restrictions placed within it. We have heard it claimed that these changes will make our roads less safe. That is simply not true. Nothing in this bill removes roadside drug testing or prevents police from taking action when there are concerns about a driver's fitness to drive. The protections that keep our roads safe remain firmly in place. What members opposite are really arguing is that someone who has followed their doctor's advice, taken a legally prescribed medicine and is not impaired should be treated exactly the same as someone using illicit drugs. That is not evidence-based policy, and it is not fair. It ignores the reality faced by thousands of patients across our State and flies in the face of the intention of members and, indeed, of their own political party, who reformed our laws to allow medical cannabis to be legally prescribed almost 10 years ago.

We have heard it suggested that this reform has been rushed or not properly consulted on. Again the facts say otherwise. This proposal was the product of years of advocacy from patients, years of consideration by policymakers, recommendations from a parliamentary inquiry, and the Drug Summit. So many people have contributed to what I appreciate is a difficult and complex area of public policy. But this approach is not a radical one. It is a measured and responsible reform. I think that the former Minister for Health and the Premier at the time talked about these issues and the things that would need to be dealt with as a consequence of a legalised medical cannabis regime in the State. The difficulty was that those issues were not dealt with but were left to our Government to manage.

Transcription in progress…