DRUGS, ROADSIDE TESTING

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That this council urges the government to reconsider its roadside drug testing policy given that the drug wipe test using the Cozart RapiScan chromatographer failed to meet international standards for the detection of illicit drugs.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1298.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:28): I think it is important to put the government's position on the record in relation to this motion. The Hon. Ann Bressington's motion is based on the false premise that the roadside screening tests being used by SAPOL failed to meet international standards for the detection of illicit drugs.

As honourable members would be aware, SAPOL began roadside driver drug testing on 1 July 2006. Mr Bill Cossey's recent review of the first year of operation of the Road Traffic (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill 2005 describes SAPOL's implementation of the roadside testing regime as 'exemplary'.

I place on the record what equipment SAPOL has been using and why Securetec Drugwipe Twin II and Cozart RapiScan equipment has been approved to conduct roadside testing of drivers. First of all, in relation to the Securetec Drugwipe Twin II and Cozart RapiScan, the detection level for cannabis using this equipment ranges from 30 nanograms up to 150 nanograms per millilitre, as specified by the manufacturer. The equipment is only a screening device, and the true levels it detects can vary from subject to subject. Drivers testing positive for drugs are reported for an offence only once a sample has been confirmed in the laboratory. The detection level in the laboratory is as low as 2 nanograms per millilitre.

The research paper was completed by Ghent University (the Rosita 2 study) in March 2006 and was published in June 2006. The study evaluated the rapid point of collection oral fluid testing devices. The study evaluated a range of nine devices, including those purchased by SAPOL through the tendering process.

A copy of the research paper was sourced by Peter Felgate, Manager, Toxicology, Forensic Science South Australia, who was also the technical adviser on the tender committee for the acquisition of the oral devices used by SAPOL. Mr Felgate provided the following advice to SAPOL last year—and this information is still relevant today. The study set a testing threshold for the devices of two nanograms of cannabis (THC) per millilitre of oral fluid. This is an extremely low threshold and well exceeded the specifications detailed within the tendering process. A threshold of this level will detect THC for up to eight to 12 hours after use and would also detect residual amounts in frequent heavy users, despite their not having used cannabis in any time proximate to driving a vehicle.

The failure rate referred to in the study indicates that some of the devices tested may provide a false negative in up to 70 per cent of tests at the two nanogram threshold. The devices purchased by SAPOL have a threshold of 30 nanograms per millilitre of oral fluid, and this equates to a capacity to detect THC within about four hours of use. This time frame is consistent with the likelihood of impairment at the time of being detected.

The research study also found that, of all devices tested, the Securetec Drugwipe and the Cozart Bioscience RapiScan were rated as the better performing devices for roadside drug testing. Other devices were assessed as being overly complex and not suited to roadside use, or involved significant delays for drivers whilst awaiting results from screening tests. The devices used by SAPOL were rated by the study as having a failure rate of less than 5 per cent, which is in clear contrast with the failure rate of other devices tested, which ranged from 10 to 25 per cent. The study considered that a failure rate of a maximum of 5 to 10 per cent was acceptable.

The concerns raised by the study relate to the potential for false negative readings, meaning there is a likelihood that drivers affected by cannabis may not provide a positive sample at the roadside at the thresholds set within the study. Whilst there is a risk of false negatives being recorded in the SAPOL testing program, it must be recognised that any person driving with an observable impairment that is inconsistent with the alcohol screening will be reported or arrested for DUI and may be subjected to a blood test for other drugs.

The study specifically refers to the drug testing program in Victoria and comments on the deterrent factor that random drug testing provides, despite the potential for false negatives. The study concluded that the operational applications of the Securetec device technique (SAPOL's initial roadside screening test) was well accepted by police users and drivers tested.

To summarise, the research study, whilst credible, does not at this time impact on the processes or equipment purchased for roadside drug testing by SAPOL. Since this advice was provided, SAPOL has conducted a 12-month trial on testing drivers for prescribed drugs, including cannabis, using the stated equipment. The results of this trial show that 2.91 per cent of the drivers tested positive to a prescribed drug. The pure detection rate for cannabis in South Australia was 26 per cent of the positive drivers. The pure detention rate for methyl amphetamine in South Australia was 43 per cent of the positive drivers. The pure detection rate for ecstasy in South Australia was 3 per cent of the positive drivers. Some 28 per cent of the positive drivers tested were detected with a combination of prescribed drugs.

Of the combination (28 per cent) of drugs detected in positive drivers, the breakdown was: five were positive to all three prescribed drugs; 64 were positive to cannabis and methyl amphetamine; two were positive to cannabis and ecstasy; and 10 were positive to methyl amphetamine and ecstasy. Some 26 per cent of all positive drivers detected in South Australia tested positive to cannabis, and 24 per cent of the positive drivers detected had cannabis combined with another prescribed drug. By comparison, Victoria, which utilises the same testing equipment, between December 2004 and May 2007 had achieved a pure detection rate for cannabis of only 7 per cent of all drivers tested, with a further 24 per cent of drivers testing positive to cannabis combined with another prescribed drug.

During the course of the drug trial, 647,757 drivers in South Australia were tested for alcohol, with 5,984 drivers being detected with a positive reading. The positive rate for alcohol detected in a static and mobile testing environment was 1 per cent; 10,097 drivers were detected for a prescribed drug; and 294 drivers were found to be positive. The positive rate for drugs in drivers is 2.91 per cent. The detection rate for drugs in drivers cannot be considered low.

The government has provided funding, and I am very pleased that SAPOL is currently preparing to expand the roadside drug testing regime and, of course, any part of that process is a tender for drug testing equipment. It is possible, as a result of that tender process, that the current equipment used by SAPOL for drug testing may change. Of course, this is a purely operational decision for SAPOL. I am sure that, should any changes be made by SAPOL, they will only serve to enhance a very successful regime.

I need to remind members that SAPOL, in conjunction with the Department for Transport and the Motor Accident Commission, has established a driver drug testing regime that is a successfully combined deterrent and detection mechanism and one with a succession of inbuilt safety nets. Finally, I might add that the government's roadside drug testing policy and the procedures adopted by SAPOL to enforce it have been a success. I am pleased that SAPOL has been able to enforce the government's message of clamping down on drug drivers.

I suggest that the motion urging SAPOL to reconsider its roadside drug test policy, although well meaning, is misguided because this policy has already achieved results in terms of penalising those who choose to put everyone's safety at risk by taking drugs and getting behind the wheel of a car. The policy is clearly working well and the government cannot support the motion put forward by the Hon. Ann Bressington. The drug driving legislation (as we know) had a built-in provision for review to be carried out after that one year, and the report of the review has now been laid before both houses of parliament. I have taken the report to my cabinet colleagues and asked them to note it. I said that I would come back with appropriate legislative changes for cabinet discussion and approval.

Some of the recommendations were drafting and legislative tidying up, and we have already commenced that process. We are considering all the recommendations. I have also spoken to both the Premier and the Attorney-General, and we all agree that we need to take even stronger measures to stop people driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both, and if people drink and drive or drink and drug drive, again besides putting their own lives at risk, they are putting at risk the lives of other people who have the misfortune to be on the road at the same time.

I have also had several discussions with Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, and we agree that the incidence of one in 34 people taking drugs and driving is very concerning. I have indicated to my colleagues my support for further strengthening of the recommendations. We are committed to improving the process, getting drug drivers off our roads and ensuring that the system works in the best possible way. We should not forget that the system has worked, and worked well; we have picked up lots of irresponsible people and taken them off our roads. As I mentioned, the government is continuing to support the program with an extra $11.1 million over four years to increase the program in South Australia. I believe that we have sent and we will continue to send a strong message that drug and drink driving is a serious offence and one not to be tolerated.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.