Reports on ABC TV news last night and on ABC news and online today in relation to the Tasmania Police Alcohol and other Drugs Policy contain a number of inaccuracies.

I have contacted the ABC to express disappointment that there was no attempt made to check the facts with the Department.

I have requested the story be corrected, with the following information:

Broadly, the report claims that the Police Service Act requires amendment to give Tasmania Police the power to use blood tests for drug testing.  This is not correct.  Police are not seeking to use blood tests as the primary means of drug testing.  A blood test could be used for that purpose, but only if an officer requests, and thereby consents, to a blood sample being taken.   The Department intends to use the less invasive technology of saliva tests for drug testing.  The current legislation also already provides the power to take a saliva sample to test for drugs.
The legislative change being sought will bring the Police Service Act into line with Australian Standard AS4760-2006 Drugs in Oral Fluid.  It will allow a second saliva sample to be collected for independent laboratory analysis should the initial sample return a positive result.  In the interim, targeted and incident related drug testing will be undertaken as required.
In detail, the following statements contained the report are incorrect:
“It was to have been the first time officers were subjected to random and targeted testing for illicit drugs, as well as alcohol.”
When the Alcohol and other Drugs Policy was announced, it was clearly stated in a media release issued to all media, published on our website and Facebook page that; “Under the policy, a program of random, targeted and incident-related alcohol testing will be undertaken. There will also be targeted and incident-related drug testing; random drug testing will be introduced pending amendments to the Police Service Act,”
“But the saliva test can only detect broad drug categories and a blood test would be needed to pinpoint what drug is actually present.”
Incorrect.  A saliva swab is collected and inserted into the testing machine.  Within 5 minutes  the technology will indicate the presence of one or more of five drug categories (amphetamine, THC (cannabis), cocaine, methamphetamine, and opiates).  If any one of the five drug types is detected, a second saliva sample is obtained and this sample (divided into two parts; Part A and Part B) is sent to an independent NATA accredited laboratory for analysis.  Part A is analysed and Part B is retained for a minimum of six months and is available for further testing should there be a dispute.
A blood test does not form any part of the testing process.  As mentioned above, a member may elect to have a blood test rather than a saliva test but they are under no obligation to do so.  This is provided for under the existing legislation.
“It cannot, for example, distinguish between a prescribed painkiller and heroin.”
Incorrect.  The initial saliva swab that is tested in the workplace identifies the presence of drugs, eg opiates, the category of drugs which includes painkillers and heroin.  If the initial test is positive, a second saliva test (pending legislative amendment) will be taken and analysed by an independent laboratory.  This analysis identifies the specific opiate contained in the sample.
“The Police Service Act only allows for the taking of breath, urine and salvia samples from officers, not blood.
Legislation will need to be changed to allow blood tests.”
Incorrect. The Police Service Act does provide for the collection of blood samples, but only with the consent of the tested person unless they are unable to give consent in some circumstances.

Scott Tilyard
Deputy Commissioner