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

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-168817

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

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

Returned

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.

Consideration in Detail

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 17 September 2026.

Registered medical cannabis user must be warned

No. 1

Page 5, Schedule 1[7], proposed section 111AA(2), lines 12–15. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

(2)The registered medical cannabis user must not be charged with an offence under section 111(1B) and must be given a warning if the user—

(a)has had no, or only one, other positive detection in the previous 2 years, and

(b)has never—

(i)been convicted of a registered medical cannabis user offence, or

(ii)received a criminal finding for a registered medical cannabis user offence,

or

(iii)been dealt with by way of penalty notice for a registered medical cannabis user offence.

Registered medical cannabis user must be warned

No. 2

Page 5, Schedule 1[7], proposed section 111AA. Insert after line 22—

(4)In this section—

criminal finding

means—

(a)a finding that an offence has been proved without proceeding to a conviction, or

(b)a finding that an offence has been proved and the discharging of, or the making of an order releasing, the offender conditionally on entering into a good behaviour bond for a specified period or on other conditions decided by the court.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON (MaitlandMinister for Roads, and Minister for Regional Transport) (18:10:18):

— I move:

That the Legislative Council amendments be agreed to.

I outline some minor changes made to the bill through Government amendments in the other place.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Donna Davis):

Members will leave the Chamber in silence.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON:

As members may be aware, concerns were raised about drafting in one section of the bill at the third reading stage in the other place. The Government took the precaution of seeking further advice after those concerns were first raised on Tuesday evening. Following consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, we accept that an alternative interpretation of some provisions is possible. The New South Wales Government feels that, in the interests of everyone but particularly medicinal cannabis patients, this legislation is clear. The Government's amendments made in the other place put the alternative interpretations beyond doubt. I have no wish to re-prosecute all of that but, to be clear, there is no change to the policy that we have announced and have outlined in both Houses.

The proposed new section outlines when a warning must, and when it cannot, be issued for a registered medicinal cannabis user offence. The revised drafting focuses on one section, proposed new section 111AA. The drafting is now clearer that if a driver has had no or only one other positive detection in the previous two years, a warning applies. This replaces the less clear reference to fewer than two positive detections in the bill that we previously considered, which was apparently confusing to some people. I emphasise that this is not a change in our approach for the registered user offence. A registered user will have the benefit of two warnings, but if there is a third detection in two years, they will face a charge and penalties.

The amendments have also clarified the second requirement that must be met to qualify for a warning: that the driver has never had a registered medicinal cannabis user offence. The intent is to exclude drivers from a warning if they have already been warned, have already had an offence—a third strike, say—and are then detected again. Otherwise the driver would re-enter the warning cycle, which does not appropriately deal with repeat behaviour. Under the reform, the registered medicinal cannabis user offence, if it is detected after repeat warnings, could be determined in court with a conviction or a proven outcome, or could be dealt with by penalty notice.

The bill now outlines that warnings can only apply if a person has not had a previous registered user offence that was resolved in any of those ways which are outlined. The more specific drafting replaces the general reference to a person who has committed an offence. While used in a range of other parts of the Road Transport Act 2013 to capture where there is a previous offence, I again acknowledge the uncertainty—what the Hon. Stephen Lawrence called the ambulatory nature—of this term in this case, as a similar term is used in the registered user offence provision. The effect is that the driver can be charged and penalties can apply to any detections that follow the third strike. That is consistent with the position outlined in the second reading speech. Amendment No. 2 supports the key change outlined by providing a definition of "criminal finding" for the purposes of the section. Broadly, this is where the offence is proven.

I take some time to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Rod Roberts, and acknowledge the Minister for Transport for leading these amendments in the other place. I place on record the thanks that Minister Graham gave in the other place to the Hon. Rod Roberts. While the member is opposed to the legislation, he did try to raise this issue in good faith in the way that he was able to, given the role he holds in that place. Most importantly, I thank all of the advocates who have lobbied for years for this change. We have listened to their voices. We have read their letters. We have felt their pain and suffering. I thank the many organisations that have lobbied for change and, of course, my parliamentary colleagues from across the political spectrum who have put people before politics. Particularly, I thank the member for Sydney and the member for Wagga Wagga in this place, and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham in the other place.

I thank Louise Higgins-Whitton, Sally Millward and Ruth Graham from Transport for NSW, who have been working on this for so long. I especially thank Niamh Boyce, Sachin Saxenda and Lachlan McKenzie, particularly for the work that Niamh and Sachin did for over a year in the lead-up to the introduction of the bill. I thank Andrew "Joey" Johns and Michael James, who stood with the Premier, other Ministers and me back on 4 June—over three months ago—to announce that we were moving forward on this legislation, which had already been over a year and a half in development since the historic 2024 Drug Summit convened by Premier Minns.

I thank my ministerial colleagues, especially the Hon. John Graham, the Hon. Rose Jackson, Minister Park, Minister Catley and the Attorney General for their work and that of their agencies to ensure the bill balanced the important issues of the dignity of and compassion for patients with road safety outcomes. I also thank all of the local members in this place who have advocated unrelentingly for the people in their community. There are too many of them to name, but I thank them all. Particularly, I call out the member for Heathcote. Her contribution to the second reading debate was incredible. I know this is an issue the member for Summer Hill has also been advocating on for literally over a decade.

The passage of this law is important for improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians who suffer from complex health conditions like cancer, severe chronic pain, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Ten years ago, this Parliament listened to the voices of veterans, cancer patients and some of the most sick and vulnerable people in our community. I thank former Premier Mike Baird, who I spoke to the other day in his new role as the CEO of the NRMA. He showed the same compassion in that conversation that he showed when he changed that legislation with the support of the Parliament. Unfortunately, the government of the day did not also legislate to take these people out of the roadside drug detection system, which was designed to pick up illicit drugs. It was a system which had focused on detection rather than impairment.

As we have said from the very beginning, this legislation provides medicinal cannabis patients with the dignity and respect they have been seeking for 10 years. The Minns Labor Government is pleased that there will now be a more commonsense system for drivers who rely on this prescribed medication for a range of debilitating conditions, while keeping road safety always at the front of our minds. Navigating this legislation has been a complex issue. We have made minor administrative amendments to the bill to provide further clarity, but that has not changed the policy intent behind this important legislation and nor has it changed our purpose. This Parliament has voted for compassion while still providing protection for road safety. I commend the Legislative Council amendments to the House.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (18:17:36):

The bill before the House exposes a government making up medicinal cannabis driving laws on the run. The amendments before the House are not a minor administrative change. They are not technical amendments. They are a significant change to the way New South Wales deals with drivers who test positive for THC, and they come at a time when the road toll is already heading in the wrong direction. Yet the more questions the Opposition asks, the clearer it becomes that the Minister for Roads does not properly understand her own legislation. The Government cannot clearly explain how the system will operate and has failed to resolve the most fundamental road safety questions raised by the Opposition.

Yesterday, and again today, the Minister was asked straightforward questions about this bill. Instead of providing straightforward answers, she resorted to insults, calling members of the Opposition lazy and stupid, insulting members for asking legitimate questions. The Government was forced to move amendments that clearly contradict—or at the very least seriously undermine—the answers the Minister gave in this House yesterday and today. The Minister's rhetoric has collided with the reality of her own legislation. That is not careful lawmaking; that is policy being made up on the run. Road safety is far too important for that.

Transcription in progress…