Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Road Safety ROAD SAFETY The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council ROAD SAFETY The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:00): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Road Safety a question about road safety. Leave granted. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Members will recall the sometimes acrimonious debates in the middle of last year in relation to the minister's and the government's drug driving legislation and testing program. In recent weeks, the minister released a review of the operations of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Act prepared in September 2007, in which it is reported that only nine drivers have tested positive for ecstasy (MDMA); 10 have tested positive for both MDMA and methyl amphetamine; and five have tested positive for MDMA, methyl amphetamine and THC. So, in total, 24 drivers in a period of less than a year, or approximately a year, tested positive for MDMA (ecstasy) by itself or, indeed, for MDMA in combination with other drugs. In June last year, there was quite a controversial debate when the opposition raised the issue that the government was not including MDMA in its drug-testing regime. The minister made a number of what some observers have described to me as extraordinary comments—and I will quote some of them. On ABC Radio on 19 June the minister, in defending her decision not to include ecstasy in the testing regime, said: The detection of ecstasy is extremely rare. It is not what's out there in the street. It is not what is killing our people on the roads. Then in the council, when challenged on 20 June last year, the minister said: The advice was that, in its pure form, MDMA (and we are talking about ecstasy in its pure form) is not readily available; and, if my recollection serves me correctly, in the past five years one person (post mortem) in South Australia had consumed it. Then, further on, the minister said: Pure MDMA is apparently quite rare in South Australia. That is the advice that we received from the experts. My question to the minister now is: with the benefit of hindsight, is she prepared to concede to the council that she was wrong in her opposition to including MDMA? I should say that after two months of intense public pressure, in the parliament as well, the government reversed its position and included MDMA, or ecstasy, as part of the drug testing regime. My questions are: 1.	Is the minister now prepared, with the benefit of hindsight, to acknowledge that she was wrong? 2.	Is she now prepared to table the advice that she received from persons that she described as experts in the area, who told her that the use of ecstasy was extremely rare and that it is not what is out there in the street, that it is not what is killing our people on the roads, and that there had been only one occurrence of ecstasy detected in a driver in the past five years? So, will she table the advice that she has received from particular persons that led her to the statements that she made in the middle of last year? The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO Legislative Council Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (15:04): I am certain that the honourable member—having been here for so many years—would remember that the legislation in relation to the drug driving trial was passed in the last parliament, and it was indeed the parliament, based on scientific information provided to it, that decided to proscribe those two drugs, in particular cannabis and, of course, methyl amphetamine. Without any waste of time, the trial got under way, involving the two drugs considered by this parliament and prescribed in the regulations. The information provided to me concerning MDMA was the same as that provided to the parliament; that is, that in— The Hon. R.I. Lucas Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. Lucas: From whom? The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO Legislative Council The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, clearly, via the department. One does not make these things up. In 2006, 24 per cent of driver and motorcycle rider fatalities tested post mortem had either THC and/or methyl amphetamine in their blood at the time of the crash. Between 2003 and 2005, 23 per cent of driver/rider fatalities tested post mortem had detectable levels of one or a combination of THC, methyl amphetamine and MDMA in their blood at the time of the crash. So, in relation to the several months that it took to include MDMA, as good governments and responsible ministers do, they go off and find a budget to ensure that we could include a new drug. We also had to ensure that the police, who were actually conducting the testing, had the capability and, with the assistance of my colleague the Hon. Paul Holloway, we ascertained that was the case and another regulation was passed to ensure that we could actually expiate for MDMA. I told the honourable member on several occasions that the—not the footprint, or the ingredients—what is the word I am trying to think of? The Hon. R.I. Lucas Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I have no idea. Can't you admit that you are wrong? The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO Legislative Council The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: No, there is nothing wrong with the parliament having passed legislation and with my ensuring that the will of the parliament was implemented in relation to the two prescribed drugs. Essentially, the makeup of methyl amphetamine and MDMA is so similar that you cannot detect the difference until you come to the forensic stage. The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting: The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO Legislative Council The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have spoken to Forensic Services. You cannot tell the difference at the street level stage. So, had anybody been tested for MDMA they would have also been taken off the road. As it happens, there were no detections between 1 July, when we commenced the trial, and 8 September, when the regulation commenced in relation to persons having only MDMA in their system. I think there was one who had a combination, and as to be expected not only were they taken off the road at the time when they were tested on the road—because, as I said, you cannot detect at the road level testing the difference between methyl amphetamine and MDMA—but they were also expiated because they had another drug, as well, in their system. As the minister, I did the responsible thing, which is what ministers do. I ensured that the will of the parliament was enacted. The trial started at the time with the two drugs that were prescribed and regulated. I then went off, as responsible ministers do, and ensured that the police had the capacity to test for MDMA, and when we did that we passed the regulation.