Drug and Alcohol Testing

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:01): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question in relation to roadside drug driving tests.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I note at the outset that the Hon. Mr Stephens asked a question on this same topic yesterday. My question is similar but different. I also note that, according to the SAPOL annual report for 2015-16, as reported by The Advertiser and Sunday Mail on the weekend just gone, 5,569 drivers returned a positive drug test last financial year. In contrast, there were 1,832 in 2010-11—quite a substantial increase.

Although 50,769 driver drug screening tests were conducted by police in 2015-16, this is some 2,174 fewer than in the previous financial year. In contrast to the 50,000-ish drug driving screening tests, some 544,161 drink-driving tests were conducted this last financial year—almost 10 times the number of drug driving tests conducted. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why has there been a reduction in the number of roadside drug driving tests this financial year?

2. Why are there significantly more drink-driving tests conducted per year when the government has recognised, and statistics show, that drug driving causes more fatalities on South Australian roads?

3. Will increased roadside testing form part of the government's policy addressing the serious issue of drug driving?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I articulated yesterday, decisions regarding the use of SAPOL's resources are entirely within the remit of the police commissioner. As a community and certainly as a parliament, we have to exercise a degree of trust that the police commissioner is using the substantial resources at his disposable in such a way as to best deliver outcomes regarding public safety. Notwithstanding that, the Hon. Mr Hood's questions are entirely reasonable, as were some of the components of the questions from the Hon. Mr Stephens yesterday.

The answer remains the same. My advice is that SAPOL have made a very deliberate and conscious decision to try to maximise the number of defendants who are caught in the act of drug driving, and the best way to do that is to use resources in a way that is based on intelligence. My advice is that, for the last 12 months, SAPOL have been very deliberate and strategic in trying to target those people who might be associated with drug driving or those people who might be in different cohorts, or areas or times, in the community who are more likely to be performing these sorts of crimes. That is what has resulted in the spike in the number of people being detected, despite the fact that fewer tests have been taken.

Regarding the Hon. Mr Hood's question about why there are more drink-driving tests than drug driving tests in light of the challenge we are facing, that is again a very good question. I am happy to take part of that on notice. As I acknowledged yesterday, drug driving tests are expensive. I have not received any information as to why that would be the reason there are more drink-driving tests conducted than drug driving tests, but I think we are all aware of the fact that drug driving tests are substantially more expensive. My advice is they are in the order of almost $100 a pop, in comparison to drink-driving tests, which are demonstrably cheaper. It is not an apples with apples comparison to compare drink-driving tests with drug driving tests.

In terms of the last part of the Hon. Mr Hood's question regarding whether enforcement is part of the government's thinking when it comes to potential reforms to drug driving laws, the answer is absolutely yes. Enforcement is critical because, as the Hon. Mr Hood and others well know, there is no point in this place passing statutes if the public don't reasonably believe that they will be enforced, vis-a-vis that there isn't a reasonable proposition that if they break the law they will be caught.

That is why the government remains absolutely committed, and consistently committed, to resourcing SAPOL with everything they need to be able to do the job. If the government receives advice from the police commissioner that he requires or desires a particular new piece of kit, or needs a piece of legislative change, that would enable him to go about the business of enforcement more effectively or efficiently, then clearly that is something the government will factor into its considerations in due course.