Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2016.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:05): I thank the council for its patience. I rise to speak on the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. The bill makes minor changes to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 predominantly in response to a COAG agreement to align poison controls across jurisdictions. Clause 4 is intended to reduce reporting requirements for suppliers of schedule 7 poisons and makes it easier for businesses operating across state boundaries.

These changes are in response to nationally agreed controls over poisons and align the South Australian law with these standards. In practice, the changes will remove the obligation for suppliers of schedule 7 poisons to record the purpose of each purchase. I was advised at the briefing that the retailer is still required to inquire about the purpose of the purchase, but not to record it. The requirement to record the occupation of the purchaser, which is also a uniquely South Australian requirement, is also removed by the bill. It is asserted that these details can be implied through the type of licence under which a poison is purchased.

Schedule 7 poisons can only be sold to a person holding a pest control licence or to a farmer with an accreditation. These are not generally available poisons that one might expect someone with nefarious purposes might try to obtain. They are only available to people in specified categories. In that regard, I thank the minister and his office (I think it is minister Snelling) for the response to the information that I requested at the briefing. For the benefit of the house and for the record, I will share that.

Schedule 7 poison retailers are required by their licence provisions to restrict schedule 7 poison sales to three classes of person. The first class is persons licensed by the Department for Health and Ageing to carry out pest control activities in South Australia. Currently there are 2,141 such licence holders. The second class is persons licensed by the Department for Health and Ageing to possess a specific schedule 7 poison, called chloropicrin in South Australia. Currently, there are 10 licence holders in this category. The third category is persons who hold a current chemical user accreditation in South Australia, issued by a registered training organisation. That is by far the largest group, with currently 12,915 accredited persons.

The note from the minister's office indicates that regulation of chemical users is under Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) legislation, administered by PIRSA. The minister's office also advises me that the auditing of the schedule 7 retailers is carried out by the Department for Health. The average annual inspection rate is around 7.8 per cent of all licensed schedule 7 poison retailers, and that is a five-year average. I need to correct the record and apologise: the minister responsible is minister Vlahos, and her advisor has been assisting with that information. So, that is clause 4 of the current bill.

Clause 5 of the bill relates to the administration of prescription medicines to animals and seeks to reinstate the requirement that a person is only permitted to administer a schedule 4 prescription drug to an animal if the minister has licensed that person to do so. This is a requirement that was omitted from the act in 2011. Once again, the opposition supports remedying this omission. The bill also seeks to address ambiguity between the terms 'selling' and 'supplying' drugs under clause 6. This ambiguity has been seen as a problem in the application of section 57 of the act, where the minister is given the power to issue a prohibition order against a person where a person has sold a prescription drug in an irresponsible manner.

In closing, I again make the point that, whilst we do not oppose this bill, in my view, it highlights the government's lack of a legislative program. The nationally agreed controls that this bill responds to were released in May 2013. This act has been open twice since then—first in July 2013 and again in February 2014. The government had plenty of opportunities to make these simple changes when the act was open previously. It seems unnecessary to spend time bringing a separate bill before the chamber, unless of course you are a listless, lazy government with a lack of a legislative program.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:10): I thank members for their contributions on this bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.