HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (DRUG DETECTION POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2008. Page 1973.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:25): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate support for this amendment bill. I am sure that all members are aware that the South Australian police force has trained three passive alert drug detection dogs. These dogs are specifically trained to detect odours from drugs such as heroin, amphetamines, cannabis and cocaine.

Pursuant to the training of these dogs, SAPOL has requested appropriate amendments to the Controlled Substances Act to facilitate the use of these dogs as part of its strategy to deal with drugs and drug-related crime. The Controlled Substances Act 1984 presents some ambiguity as to the extent to which police can carry out people screening operations using the passive alert drug detection dogs. This has necessitated a change to the act in order that dogs may be used for general drug detection without actually constituting a search, which is already legislated for under the Controlled Substances Act and, of course, the Summary Offences Act.

The bill also addresses specific powers to tackle the incidence of illegal drugs being transported interstate along major transport routes and, I suspect, also within the state. The opposition has some concerns with the searching of vehicles on interstate transport routes. I will speak briefly about the general drug detection powers.

The opposition understands that general drug detection will be carried out in licensed premises, with the exception of restaurants. So, we assume that it is in hotels, nightclubs and bars, but not where people are actually sitting down having a meal, where dogs may be a little—I will not say unwelcome but it may be difficult to get in amongst the tables. It is more, I suspect, to be focussed at the nightclub-type of venue.

With people waiting to enter a nightclub, we understand that the dogs will be able to wander up and down those queues of people waiting to go into nightclubs, hotels and entertainment venues, especially at night, and would be able to actually sniff and detect any particular odours on the people waiting to get in. We assume that it will also be used at football matches; anywhere where there is a big crowd of people in a public area.

I would like the minister to come back and respond to exactly where it will be used in public areas. I often see groups of people congregating in the Rundle Mall. Are the dogs to be used in the mall? We want some clarity as to whether that is something that the Police Commissioner, or a senior officer, could request, that the dogs be used in public areas such as the mall, or is it only just to be licensed premises?

We are also of the understanding that the licensed premises will also include the car parks that are linked to those licensed premises. It is very easy, if you have got a hotel or nightclub with a big car park, for the officers with the dogs to wander through those cars.

The opposition would also like to know whether the detection powers of the dogs will be for any vehicle that happens to be, for example, in the street in Hindley Street or any of the side streets? Are the dogs to be used to wander up and down and inspect or, shall we say, sniff those particular vehicles?

We also understand that the general drug detection powers would also be used on public transport and public places. We assume that that is the football, the mall, the Fringe, a whole range of public events. We understand that those powers will be used. We want some clarity from the minister, because our understanding is that they will be used in these places and authorised by a senior police officer or inspector in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commissioner. We understand that the guidelines have not actually been drafted yet, but we would like an indication from the minister as to the general outline of what he would see as the guidelines.

We also wonder why they need to be guidelines and not regulations, which would then, of course, give us the opportunity for disallowance as well as a little more transparency in relation to those guidelines. I note that the minister is always happy to bring back responses for us, so, if he could do that, it would certainly help the opposition to understand how those guidelines will be administered, the powers of the guidelines and the scope of those drug detection activities.

The bill also grants special powers to authorise the setting up of drug detection points. In the briefing, it was explained to us that it was something similar to an RBT, with a general roadblock at either a border crossing or maybe just a major transient route, where all vehicles would be stopped and tested.

We understand that this will be a 30 kilometre radius from the GPO, so it is outside the metropolitan area. Of course, we realise that at present there are only three of these dogs, so we assume that, at the very most, we would have only three of these sites. At the briefing, I asked whether the dogs suffer any sort of nose fatigue—whether they run out of sniff or puff, so to speak. I think that after a while they do become physically tired, and there is a limit to how much they can do. So, I would be certain that, unless we invest a lot of money in training more dogs, there will be only occasional use of this particular power to have RBT-type stations testing for drugs.

It is our understanding that the dogs will be permitted in any part of the vehicle other than the passenger areas. That presents some interesting questions that I would like to put to the minister. For example, if a car is stopped for inspection, does that mean that the dog can inspect and sniff in the boot but not in the passenger compartment with the occupants of the car? More importantly, an interstate bus has a big underfloor cargo area where the dog can jump in and sniff around, but that also means that the dog will not be able to sniff in the passenger areas.

The third question, which I think is probably more interesting, relates to interstate transport. As you know, Mr President, the sleeper cabin on the back of a prime mover is quite high, and you would probably have to lift the dog up into it, which could potentially cause some damage. Understandably, you would not want to put a dog up into a sleeper cabin of a semi. All the interstate truck drivers that I know are very proud of their rigs and would not particularly like dogs clamouring around in them. So, I can understand why the police would not recommend having the dogs in there. However, it presents a problem in that, if someone who is involved in the transportation of illegal substances knows that the sleeper cabin or the cabin of a bus, or any other vehicle—whether it is a small truck, or whatever—will not be searched, it would seem to be the logical place to put them.

I would like to ask a question of the minister—and the opposition would look at perhaps drafting an amendment along these lines, depending on the minister's response: I know that drug detection wands are available, and we see them at certain entrances. I have visited a couple of people in airports and various places which have drug detection wands. I would like the minister to indicate whether other drug detection wands are strong enough or sensitive enough to do the job in the cabin of a car, in a bus or in a sleeper cabin of a particular transport vehicle, like a semitrailer, because we do not want to disturb people in the middle of the night. The last thing we want to do is wake them up and disturb them.

We do not want to hinder transport operators who are on reasonably tight schedules, and there are a number of issues regarding speeding, fatigue management, and a whole range of other issues in the transport industry. The old saying that time is money is true—they need to actually get from point A to point B in the quickest possible time. However, I would like some indication from the minister as to whether those wands are an appropriate way to search vehicles. If we are going to have roadblocks and RBT-type situations to test vehicles, it seems crazy to have compartments within the vehicles that are not to be tested.

I spoke to the Road Transport Association, and it is somewhat concerned about the time delays that the searches would cause. We certainly do not want our very important Road Transport Association's activities to be unduly hindered; however, we think it would be worth while for the minister to comment on whether that is an appropriate way to conduct a test in passenger compartments of transport vehicles.

The Commissioner of Police reports annually to the Attorney-General on the number of authorisations, the places and times that these operations are carried out, and the occasions of positive drug detection. We are also considering that advice—or the reporting requirements—from the Commissioner to the Attorney-General. It might be interesting to see whether the minister is prepared to consider an amendment to enable that information to be tabled in both houses of parliament. So, with those few words, I indicate the opposition's support for this bill, but we do await the minister's response before considering further amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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