Drug Driving Legislation

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-168560

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

Drug Driving Legislation

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (11:56:51):

My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Regional Transport—a change of strategy. Last night, just before the final vote on Labor's three-strikes drug driving bill in the upper House, the Hon. Rod Roberts, MLC, pointed out that the bill contains serious drafting errors that will make the laws unworkable. With the bill only one vote away from being law in New South Wales, will the Minister pull the bill?

Mr Ron Hoenig:

Point of order: The question infringes upon Standing Order 128 (2). Firstly, the member for Oatley got the name of the bill wrong. He deliberately described the bill in the way he did to create argument, inference and imputation. If he wants to ask a specific question of the Minister, he should ask that question using the correct name of the bill and the proper form.

Ms Felicity Wilson:

To the point of order: The Leader of the House referred to nomenclature that is being used across this Parliament in both Houses throughout debate on the bill. That is also how it is commonly referred to in the media. I think the Minister is capable of understanding the bill that is being referred to. If she is not capable of doing so, then we can rephrase the question. But I am sure she understands.

The SPEAKER:

I am sure the Minister is very capable of answering the question. While I am sympathetic to the matter raised by the Leader of the House, I see that the Minister is raring to go with her answer. I call the Minister.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON (MaitlandMinister for Roads, and Minister for Regional Transport) (11:58:56):

— Just to get all of the points of order under Standing Order 129 out of the way, the answer is no. Last night I was in the Legislative Council gallery and I was astounded. I do not know where the member for Oatley was. He was probably asleep, because he was not watching the bill be debated. Opposition members do not like the fact that two warning letters may be given, but then they think the legislation does not provide for two warning letters. Their position is actually insane. The bill was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, so it was looked at by people with a very clear understanding and far more legal qualifications than most people in this House and certainly in the other House.

I make it simple for the member for Oatley: A person must have two warnings for two positive detections within the previous two years before they can be charged with a registered user offence, and a penalty applies. The bill provides at new section 111AA (2) the circumstances when a registered medical cannabis user must not be charged with a registered user offence and must be given a warning. That is why it is framed as requiring the warning if the user has fewer than two positive detections in the two previous years. That is, if two have not been issued, then a warning must be issued. That is not inconsistent in substance with the overview. It is the same outcome. It is just expressed differently because of the construction of part 7. If a driver has committed a registered user offence—that is, after the minimum warnings that have been given—then any further positive detections, irrespective of when they occur, will result in an offence or charge.

This is what happens when the Opposition comes straight out of the gate without looking at the bill. It looked at the bill of the member for Sydney, not the Government's bill, and opposed it. Opposition members got all their mates on board to do that too. They stigmatised people who were left high and dry for 10 years by the former Government's own legislation. I am sick to death of the stigmatisation of patients who have experienced severe pain from cancer and other very serious conditions that medicinal cannabis can help. The other day I spoke to former Premier Mike Baird, who is now with the NRMA, about the compassion we tried to put in place with this bill, while also balancing very serious road safety considerations. We have come up with a bill that does that work very clearly. We said to the NRMA that we welcome its participation in the review.

The SPEAKER:

Order! I direct the member for Oatley to remove himself from the Chamber under Standing Order 249A until the end of question time.

Pursuant to standing order the member for Oatley left the Chamber at 12:01.

[]

Ms JENNY AITCHISON:

That clown over there is a disgrace. He should lose his shadow portfolio.

Ms Felicity Wilson:

Point of order: Mr Speaker, I am sure you heard the name-calling from the Minister for Roads. That is unparliamentary language. I ask that she withdraw the comment.

The SPEAKER:

I will review that if I need to. The Minister has the call.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON:

I am happy to withdraw the nomenclature, but I do not withdraw what should happen.

The SPEAKER:

I did not hear the comment because I was in the process of removing the member for Oatley from the Chamber.