DRUGS, ROADSIDE TESTING

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:17): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I refer to the report on the first year of operation of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill 2005, which I recently laid on the table. The Rann government is committed to getting the message through to irresponsible drivers that they do not belong on our roads. When legislative measures to tackle drug driving in the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill 2005 came into force on 1 July 2006, South Australia was only the third jurisdiction in this country to introduce random roadside drug testing.

The drug-driving testing regime means that any driver in South Australia can be stopped and asked to take a random roadside saliva drug test. The prescribed drugs police can test for are the active ingredients in cannabis (THC), methyl amphetamine, speed, and MDMA (Ecstasy). When the bill was approved by the parliament, the government included a review clause, which meant that a review of the operation of the random drug testing program would be undertaken.

Mr Bill Cossey AM was engaged to undertake the review, and a steering committee was also established, comprising senior officers from the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI), SA Police, Forensic Science SA and Drug and Alcohol Services SA. The independent review found that the legislation has been introduced efficiently and with a minimum of legislative, administrative or operational difficulties. There were 10,097 roadside tests conducted in the first year, and 294 drivers (one in 34) were found to have one or other of the three drugs prescribed by the legislation in their system. All 10,097 drivers were also tested for the presence of alcohol, and 147 were found to have blood alcohol levels in excess of the legal limit.

From a road safety perspective, the use of drugs when driving is of concern, and it is alarming that one in 34 drivers has tested positive to the prescribed drugs. The government has an ongoing commitment to this road safety measure, and an extra $11.1 million over four years was allocated in the 2007-08 state budget for an expansion of roadside drug testing, reflecting the government's commitment to continue with a drug testing regime.

This is on top of $4.3 million previously allocated by the state government in the 2005-06 budget. The increased funding will mean that police can undertake around 39,000 tests per year. As the report outlines, SAPOL has reported a positive response from drivers who have been stopped to undertake a saliva test. A voluntary attitudinal survey of 400 drivers was undertaken by SAPOL while waiting for the results of the initial drug-screening test at the roadside.

Of the respondents, 98 per cent indicated support for driver drug testing; 97 per cent indicated that they were comfortable with the equipment used for the initial drug-screening test. This shows that road users are supportive of the introduction of random drug testing and that the time taken to perform the test is not considered to be an inconvenience. It is also worth members noting that, when parliament passed the legislation, it also provided police with the powers to request a drug screen or blood test when in the normal course of their duties they observe a driver committing a driving offence or driving in a manner that indicates impaired driving ability. Samples taken in these circumstances are analysed for a very broad range of drugs—including prescription—and not just the three drugs tested in the roadside drug-screening process.

Drivers can be charged under the provision of driving under the influence (DUI) as a result of this testing. The 18 recommendations listed in the report cover a range of issues including legislative and operational matters. As Mr Cossey states in the report, the recommendations aim to strengthen the already robust foundation established in the first 12 months as the implementation of more widespread driver testing proceeds in 2007-08. The government is considering all the report's recommendations, and I am taking advice about further strengthening some of those recommendations. For example, the report recommends giving people charged with a drug-driving offence information about accessing professional help. It may be more in line with public expectations that repeat drug drivers be treated in the same manner as repeat drunk drivers.

Similarly, in terms of consistency between the way in which drunk and drug-driving offences are treated, another of the report's recommendations is to increase the expiation fee for certain drunk-driving offences to better match the expiation fees for drug-driving offences. I have had some initial discussions with the Police Commissioner about the report's recommendations. As mentioned, I also intend to seek further advice from other interested partners involved in road safety in South Australia prior to bringing back any required legislative changes. Naturally, I intend to further discuss the implementation or otherwise of the bulk of the report's recommendations with my cabinet colleagues, bearing in mind that the community tolerance of people who use drugs and drive or who drink alcohol and drive, or both, is rightfully at an all-time low.