HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DRUGS, ROADSIDE TESTING

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. Ann 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 21 November 2007. Page 1495.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:01): In 2006, the government acceded to opposition demands led by Ivan Venning, the member for Schubert, that roadside drug testing be introduced in South Australia. The government was tardy in introducing roadside drug testing; the government was tardy in expanding the testing to include MDMA.

The South Australia Police uses two devices in roadside drug testing, that is, Securetec DrugWipe Twin II and Cozart RapiScan. These devices are used to detect the presence of three prescribed drugs: cannabis, methamphetamines and MDMA. The two devices were recently reaffirmed to SAPOL's choice of equipment through a tender process, but neither device is certified to be able to detect THC concentrations below 30 nanograms per millilitre of saliva.

On 14 November 2007, the Hon. Ann Bressington introduced this motion regarding roadside drug testing in the Legislative Council. The Hon. Ms Bressington's concerns focus on the ability of the test to detect one of the three illegally prescribed drugs, that is, THC (or cannabis). She suggests that a person's driving ability is impaired by a THC level of four nanograms and 5 nanograms of saliva produces a similar level of impairment of a blood level of 0.05. She also suggested that the SAPOL equipment cannot detect THC levels below 30 nanograms and that there is equipment on the market able to detect THC in levels as low as four nanograms.

I understand that SAPOL does not consider that there are any devices able to consistently detect drugs in a roadside test at a level as low as four nanograms. I am informed that, while 30 nanograms is the certified accuracy level, the tests do give positive readings with levels as low as 20 nanograms.

I understand that SAPOL uses a range of criteria in its tender evaluation for roadside drug testing equipment, such as the cost; the time delay to drivers; the ease of administration of the test by police in a roadside environment; the factor of specificity (in other words, the ability to detect particular drugs at which a 30 per cent level is required); the factor of cross reactivity (that is, the ability to differentiate between particular drugs at which a 90 per cent level is required); and the factor of accuracy (the ability to return a positive test in which 95 per cent is required).

I take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Ann Bressington, Assistant Commissioner Grant Stevens, and Superintendent Peter Thomson for their informative briefings on this matter. Following the first 12 months' operation of roadside drug testing, Bill Cossey chaired a review, which is commonly called the Cossey review, which in September 2007 made 18 recommendations, including the following recommendation:

That SAPOL continues to explore, with its counterparts interstate and the roadside equipment manufacturers, ways to ensure improved performance of the equipment used at the second stage in the roadside testing process, as part of the wider scale implementation of roadside testing planned for 2007-08

In a ministerial statement on 25 October 2007, minister Zollo indicated 'that the government is considering all the report's recommendations and I am seeking advice about further strengthening some of these recommendations'. Some of the recommendations would require legislative change. The Hon. Ms Bressington's concern is that many THC users are escaping detection due to the limitations of SAPOL equipment, with an impact on road safety and undermining the credibility and the deterrent effect of testing.

Ms Bressington's motion calls on the government to reconsider its policy. The opposition supports the Hon. Ms Bressington's motion on the grounds that the government is already reconsidering its roadside drug testing policy in the context of the Cossey review and that that review foreshadows changes to the legislation. It is our view that the issues raised by the Hon. Ms Bressington will be able to be more thoroughly aired through parliamentary debate on the above legislation.

The opposition would ask the government, as part of its response to the review, to provide this parliament with a summary of the outcomes of the tender process so that the council can be better informed of the relative performance of the roadside drug testing equipment offered in the tender process. The opposition supports the motion.

The Hon. A.L. EVANS (17:05): I rise to indicate Family First's support for this motion, as introduced by the Hon. Ann Bressington. The honourable member is concerned about the accuracy of our roadside drug testing when it comes to the detection of cannabis misuse. Family First's inquiries into this matter have also raised a number of concerning issues. Here in South Australia we use two different tests, the first being Cozart RapiScan, and the second, as I understand it, being the Securetec DrugWipe Twin II test. Much of the information regarding test data is kept confidential by SAPOL, but we understand that those are the testing systems used in South Australia.

We also understand, following discussion with those in the industry, that the Cozart test is able to detect THC in a driver's saliva above 150 nanograms, and the second test (DrugWipe II) can detect THC above 30 nanograms. In the absence of official data, I am using industry figures regarding the accuracy of these tests, and I would welcome the minister's release of SAPOL-held data regarding the current testing, if that is at all possible.

In any event, both tests fall well short of internationally accepted standards for THC detection. Pennsylvania in the United States has recently specified that their drug swabbing must be able to detect THC at the level of 5 nanograms, which seems to be a common accuracy requirement in that country. Nevada recently mandated 2 nanograms, according to an industry representative consulted by Family First; yet our police have paid something of the order of $16.5 million for swab tests which can only detect THC at levels of 30 and 150 nanograms.

The Hon. Ann Bressington states that at 150 nanograms someone would have to be 'absolutely legless' and totally incapacitated from the effects of cannabis. An article in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence magazine noted 'slight and selective impairment' at levels between 2 and 5 nanograms per millilitre, with impairments becoming 'truly prominent across all performance domains' at THC concentrations between 5 and 10 nanograms per millilitre.

One industry representative, Matthew Fry of Rapid Swan Holdings, who is an importer of drug swab tests, has informed me that THC levels initially spike at 1,000 to 2,000 nanograms within five minutes of consuming cannabis. The level then dramatically drops to below 150 nanograms within 30 minutes. Within an hour, the THC level is usually around 20 nanograms, a level which would not be picked up, even by the Drug Wipe 2 test. This means that, in South Australia, we can potentially have someone smoking cannabis half an hour before being swab tested, driving while under the influence of cannabis, and the test not producing a positive result.

As I understand it, we currently find about 2.2 per cent to 2.9 per cent of drivers under the influence of drugs. A recent industry study conducted in New Zealand with a 4 nanogram swab test had a staggering 16.6 per cent of 600 drivers delivering a positive result. The only distinguishing feature between our 2.9 per cent positive result and New Zealand's 16.6 per cent result was the type of test used.

It is a sad fact that 33 per cent of Australia's population admit to illicit drug use, particularly cannabis. Clearly, our current drug swab tests do not catch everyone they should, and I encourage the minister to look at other swab tests on the market when the current stocks run out. Therefore, Family First strongly supports the motion moved by the Hon. Ann Bressington.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:10): I thank all members for their contribution and for the words of support from the Liberal Party and Family First. As I said when I introduced this motion, it is not about the blame game. I understand that certain technology was available when the government decided to go ahead with roadside drug testing, and this is science that is being made available to us now over the last 12 months.

As I said, my main concern is that people are driving on our roads who are definitely under the influence. It is now been established overseas that the level of five nanograms is equivalent to .05 for readings of blood alcohol for drink driving. The argument has been all along that we cannot legislate effectively for this because there was no standard or accepted level for the absorption of or content of THC in the bloodstream. Over the past 12 months, that has been shot to pieces.

The detection level of 30 nanograms in South Australia is the equivalent of someone driving with a blood alcohol level of around 3 to 3.5. It is not acceptable for alcohol, and it certainly should not be acceptable for THC. I also stress that the tests we are using are very effective for picking up amphetamine, ecstasy, opiates and all those drugs. The reason it is not effective in picking up THC in the bloodstream is not only the rapid decrease in the level in saliva but also the THC molecule is very sticky. The foam the buccal swab is made from absorbs the THC or the THC molecule clings to the swab and is not released. This, combined with the rapid deterioration in the level of THC in saliva, is why it is so difficult to detect at five nanograms.

In South Australia, we have the idea that, because we have roadside drug testing, the roads will be far safer for people to drive on; however, that has been proved not to be the case.

We have had people under the influence of drugs driving and slipping through. I have had probably about six or seven parents contacting me to ask why their children had not been detected in the roadside drug testing for cannabis because they had come home from a party or a night out and were obviously stoned and had managed to slip through the drug testing regime. They were confused as to how that could happen because the level of impairment to them was obvious. These parents were quite disturbed that that was the case and feared that word would spread amongst their kids' friends that it does not matter if you use drugs and drive because you will not be detected. Some parents are concerned about their kids driving under the influence and saw it as a way of discouraging that practice, but as their kids had slipped through the net they are distressed that they will continue to use drugs and drive. I thank members for their contributions. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT