Legislative Council
TRANSADELAIDE, DRUGS POLICY
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I seek leave to make an explanation
before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning a question about
TransAdelaide's drug free workplace policy.
Leave granted.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: TransAdelaide recently adopted a drug free
workplace policy as part of its occupational health, safety and welfare policy. The policy
covers any drugs or other substances that may affect behaviour, intentionally or
otherwise. It is designed to ensure that all employees are drug free when reporting for
duty or whilst at work, nor use or have illegal drugs or substances in their possession
whilst at work. All TransAdelaide employees will be subject to tests for the presence of
drugs during periodic medical assessments or if `sufficient cause' exists, sufficient
cause being an accident, a breach of traffic regulations or at the request of an
author-ised person. In effect, the policy amounts to random drug testing.
An employee testing positive for elicit or illegal drugs, or prescription or
pharmaceutical drugs, where the drug metabolites are present at levels which exceed a
therapeutic dose, will be subject to a disciplinary hearing and his or her future
employment will be in serious jeopardy. In short, an employee testing positive to a range
of legal or illegal substances will be sacked. The policy is designed to improve public
safety, a goal I fully support. Unfortunately, the outcomes in terms of public safety and
natural justice are problematic at best. In respect of public safety the policy may merely
drive employees to use drugs that are more difficult to detect, which is what happens in
our prison system.
Urine tests are employed to detect drug usage. Some drugs are easier to detect than
others. For example, due to the fact that marijuana is not water soluble it can be
detected by urine analysis weeks after being consumed. By way of contrast, heroin
disappears from the system within a day. The possibility of drug users moving from easy to
detect marijuana to hard to detect narcotics is self evident, which defeats the purpose of
the policy and is a terrible outcome for public health and public safety.
Another problem is the possibility of an individual innocently having traces of
drugs in their system. Exposure to passive marijuana smoke is an obvious example. There is
also the possibility of an individual having a drink spiked or unwittingly eating a
marijuana cookie at a party, which cannot be dismissed, yet under this very strict policy
these people would still face the sack. Again, this entirely defeats the purpose of the
policy.
I believe a more effective means of enhancing public safety would be to introduce a
number of simple physical tests to determine if the person was impaired. A random
assessment of individuals' response times and peripheral vision would be far more
effective for identifying employees impaired by drugs, alcohol or indeed other problems.
My question to the Minister is: will the Minister investigate the efficacy of
TransAdelaide's drug free workplace policy?
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I am not quite sure what the honourable
member is suggesting. I know she made reference to physical tests and I can certainly have
that explored. The whole aim is to ensure that it is a drug free environment. In my view
that is absolutely critical, otherwise we have an environment where one cannot say with
confidence to our passengers and other road users that we have people driving who have not
taken drugs. When we see this issue addressed in public safety terms, whether it be in
aviation or, for instance, in sport, there are drug free environments in a whole range of
areas. I am not sure if the honourable member would be suggesting that going to heroin
addiction or use is the response that one sees amongst athletes or pilots. I suspect it is
not. I do not find it a strong case for undermining the approach that TransAdelaide has
taken at this time.
I should indicate that discussions are still continuing with the unions about this
policy. There is a general understanding of why it has been adopted and the implementation
of it is still under discussion. The metalworkers are having more difficulty than other
unions and their members in reaching some accommodation in terms of the policy. I have
asked that there be further consideration on one matter. When I was shown the policy in
more recent times in terms of prescrip-tion drugs I was not confident that enough thought
had been given to that area of the policy, but I can certainly assure the honourable
member I will look at this physical test issue as she has asked.
See the Government's reply: 3 June 1999
[Home]
[Head Office] [SA Branches] [What's Hot in SA]
[Mike Elliott]
[Sandra Kanck]
[Ian Gilfillan]
[SA Senators]
[SA Parliament]
[Contact Us]
[News Releases]
[National Site] [Election]
[Support Us]
[Links]