Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 June 2018.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:36): I rise to speak in broad support of the Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill 2018 and our proposed amendments to remove the under 18 age restriction that currently applies to that bill. The bill, inclusive of our proposed amendments, is entirely consistent with SA-Best's and our federal Centre Alliance colleagues' long-held policy on drugs. We are strong advocates for voluntary and involuntary assessment, treatment and rehabilitation as important elements of a suite of measures to tackle drug dependency head on.

SA-Best recognises that drug dependency not only impacts directly on the individual concerned, but has a huge effect on the family, friends and loved ones of the user, not to mention, of course, the burden it places on our health, criminal justice and corrections systems. In an ideal world, people with drug dependency would seek treatment themselves, and many eventually do.

However, as anyone who has had personal experience with drug dependency or someone in their circle with drug dependency knows only too well, many drug dependent people have lost the ability to make informed choices to keep themselves and indeed the community safe. Their families, their loved ones and medical professionals have often felt powerless to help. They can only coerce, entice and encourage the affected person to seek the help they so clearly need.

This can be an exhausting, heartbreaking, financially prohibitive and ultimately ineffective exercise. We do not want to wait until someone with a drug dependency comes to the attention of police, presents as an overdose patient in a hospital emergency department or is the subject of a coroner's report before we do something. Drug dependency requires a much broader policy response than just policing.

This bill gives family members—including siblings and children, as per our amendment to the definition of family members—the public advocate, an officer of the relevant department, medical practitioners, a court, and indeed any person with a proper interest, the ability to make an application for mandatory assessment and treatment. We do not shy away from the mandatory involuntary treatment and detention provisions of the bill, nor do we shy away from our amendments, which seek to broaden that beyond the scope of under 18 year olds.

The bill empowers those who want to help to seek orders for treatment for the drug dependent person, who is unlikely to seek this themselves. We recognise that young people in particular need specialist drug assessment and treatment services. As I understand it, it is for this reason that the Youth Court (and this is the information provided during the course of a briefing I attended) not only supported the policy proposed by the Liberal government but suggested that its judges be able to refer youth for mandatory treatment. It is a tool that I think has been lacking in that jurisdiction for a very long time, and one that would have benefited many who have passed through the doors of the Youth Court up until this point.

However, with an increasing proportion of treatment episodes being provided to older people, that is, people who are 40-plus, it is critical that people of all ages have access to high-quality, accredited assessment and treatment options, including residential and non-residential treatment and rehabilitation services. The government needs to properly resource those services now in readiness for the commencement of this bill.

We know that in Sweden, and more than a dozen nations in Europe, a key element of their drug strategies is the availability of drug rehabilitation treatment and detoxification programs, to which their courts can mandatorily divert people. It is a stringent program. In Sweden, people are helped to get off drugs quickly and permanently. Sweden has shown that, when drug abuse is tackled with strong, decisive and targeted policies, it can have a huge impact.

New South Wales Labor recently announced its drug policy, which would give police and health professionals the power to refer patients to compulsory assessment and treatment, as this bill does, and that is something that our Labor opposition may want to take into account when forming its own opinion or position in relation to this bill. New South Wales Labor wants to target youth to begin with, and then extend the program to all ages.

We have made our views known previously in relation to medicinal cannabis and cannabis oil, and that is something we will seek to clarify during the course of the second reading stage of this bill. SA-Best will continue to advocate a strong stance on drugs; we will unrelentingly push for more high-quality assessment, treatment and rehabilitation facilities and programs in metropolitan and regional South Australia to be available on a voluntary or involuntary basis to people of any age with a drug dependency problem.

If I can just add that one of the issues that was flagged with us during our stakeholder consultation on this bill, and one that I have personally raised with the minister, is concerns raised by the drug and alcohol sector specifically in relation to this scheme. Those concerns seem to centre on the lack of appropriate services available at the moment and how it is that we could possibly enforce any form of mandatory treatment when we simply do not have the numbers, the beds or the funds available at this point for those who need treatment on a voluntary basis.

My advice from the minister is that, should this bill be successful, a consultation process will be undertaken with that sector, and I repeat again for the record that they do remain very concerned about not only how this will operate in practice but also what role they will play in that process, given that they are the specialists in this field and that they are the ones who predominantly provide the services at this point in terms of drug rehabilitation in relation to youth and otherwise.

So I will hold the minister to his word in terms of those undertakings that were given regarding the consultation process that will take place and what that will look like pending the outcome of this bill. Adelaide is renowned the world over as the city of churches, the city of universities. We are well known for our wonderful parklands, our world-class wineries, our sustainable and local produce, our wildlife and our many national landmarks and treasures.

We are renowned for our cutting-edge, world-leading medical advancements, and we rate as one of the most affordable and liveable cities in the world. What a stunning endorsement of our city and, indeed, our state. However, we hang our heads in shame with the title of 'the methamphetamine and ice capital of Australia'. This alone ought to be evidence enough of why we must support these measures and why we must do more to tackle head-on the war on drugs and drug addiction.

I intend to ask the minister a number of questions in relation to the issues that I have raised, but I will keep those for the committee stage debate of the bill. With those words, we support the second reading of the bill and we look forward to fruitful conversations with both sides of the chamber in relation to our amendments.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:45): I thank the chamber for its indulgence. I rise to support this bill, which gives effect to the Marshall Liberal government's election commitment to provide drug dependent children and young people with residency at a treatment facility for up to 12 months and to enable caretakers to legally coerce youths to undertake these rehabilitation programs.

This constitutes just one aspect of the numerous reforms on the government's agenda in this space that seek to address drug-related problems experienced in South Australia through the prevention and deterrence of illicit substance abuse, with a particular focus on protecting our younger generation. Other initiatives include the toughening of our state's existing and outdated laws to better reflect the nature of drug crime in our society, ensuring our government and non-government schools have access to effective substance abuse programs and enhancing the engagement between our police officers, teachers and students in order to foster an anti-drug culture in South Australia.

The Minister for Health and Wellbeing previously explained to the council that this bill amends the Controlled Substances Act 1984 to permit an application to be made to the Youth Court for a series of orders in relation to a child or young person under the age of 18 years suffering from drug addiction. Applicants must be a parent or guardian or certain other interested parties, including medical practitioners, those who are prosecuting the respondent for an offence or the Youth Court itself. It is anticipated that the respondent would be initially referred for assessment once the court is satisfied that they are habitually using one or more controlled substances, that they pose a danger to themselves and others and that they are likely to voluntarily seek out such an assessment.

Once the nominated assessment service has reported back to the court, a mandatory treatment order can be made if deemed necessary. The nominated treatment service would be required to report both to the applicant and the court subsequent to the treatment of the respondent. Should the respondent fail to comply with either an assessment or treatment order, the court has the ability to make it a detention order to ensure compliance of the relevant order.

There is no doubt early intervention is vital to successfully combating illicit drug use. The 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report revealed cannabis is the most commonly used controlled substance among secondary students, with no less than 10 per cent admitting to ever having used the drug.

Although the harms of cannabis can be underestimated, studies conducted all over the world have consistently found it to be linked to psychosis, depression, anxiety, increased suicide rates, compromised cardiovascular respiratory and immune systems, premature ageing, cognitive dysfunction, motor skills deficiency and learning executive functioning and memory impairment. This is particularly so in youths and it is particularly concerning, of course, given that youths are the most susceptible to developing addiction to the substance, with research indicating the majority of habitual users will go on to use so-called 'harder drugs'.

Data from the National Ice Taskforce has indicated the proportion of people aged between 14 and 19 using ice has risen threefold from 0.4 of 1 per cent in 2007 to 1.2 per cent in 2013, with one of the latest Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission reports revealing South Australia and Western Australia as being the only two Australian states where crystal methamphetamine consumption is above the national average. Our communities cannot afford to continue enduring the detrimental social impacts of the ice epidemic let alone the economic costs, which the National Drug Research Institute estimated last year to reach $5 billion nationwide.

As science has confirmed that the adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of drug use, measures need to be put in place sooner rather than later to ensure young people both have access to and can be compelled to, where it is required, undertake essential treatment to prevent their addictions from persisting into adulthood.

This Liberal government believes it has a responsibility to provide every opportunity for adolescents to develop into high functioning, well-adjusted and contributing members of our society. It recognises the engagement of these particular provisions could provide at least one hope to someone seeking help for a drug dependent person in their care who does not have the will, capacity, foresight or resolve to enter into treatment through their own personal choice.

I am sure I am not the only member who has had constituents contact their office, virtually in desperation, requesting any form of assistance on behalf of a loved one, often their son or daughter, who is at the mercy of an addiction to one of these substances. Drug dependency can be devastating, not only to the individual but to the families and they should be afforded a legal means of forcing a young person to undergo a rehabilitation program in the absence of other alternatives, as the bill seeks to do.

The Marshall Liberal government is intent on delivering a concerted effort to combat substance abuse throughout our state, with an emphasis on early intervention as a key strategy. Without question, there will be many individuals in our community who will benefit from this proposal over time, which certainly has the potential to save young lives at risk now and in the future. The wellbeing of our young people should be one of our highest priorities and I firmly believe these reforms will prove to be in their best interests in the short, medium and longer term. I strongly support the bill and commend it to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:50): On behalf of the Greens, I rise today to speak in outright opposition to the Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill 2018. In doing so, the Greens stand with the health professionals who have contacted us with great concern about the path that this government is taking. The bill is in direct violation of the human rights of young people and even looking beyond that, though that on its own should be enough to see this bill not go through, it is a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

I have previously spoken in this chamber about the ridiculous failed war on drugs. This legislation seems to be a deeply misguided, at best, continuation of this Liberal government's dangerous war on drugs agenda. Before us today we have yet another bill that punishes instead of supports, that criminalises instead of helps, that keeps trying to tackle drug dependence through the justice system instead of where it should be: through the health system. Most curious of all, we have the health minister putting up what is a justice approach to a health issue.

From a wealth of international experiences and examples, we know that it is harm reduction treatment, decriminalisation and legalisation that actually saves lives. Detaining people, with no cause, no crime and no consent, other than their addiction, does not. I have received submissions from the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, Uniting Communities, the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia and the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services. They all share the Greens' concerns with the bill.

First and foremost, I note that the number of individuals using crystal methamphetamine in the general population has not actually increased over the last three years. As such, it is difficult to see the hysteria that is raised contrary to what the facts reveal. It is also difficult to see the justification for these harsh measures in the bill before us today. Mandatory detention, underpinned by the violation of human rights, is not actually commensurate with the risk to the community. It is also extraordinary that we are flying in the face of all evidence that drug addiction and abuse is a health issue and should not be a criminal matter.

Reductions in drug use can be achieved through far more effective prevention and early intervention processes and, of course, treatment models. One of the things we know about treatment models is that, when people want help, it is at that point that the treatment will be most effective. We also know that, when people are forced into treatment, it is at that point that it is the least effective. Yet here we have the bill before us today.

The bill specifically singles out young people. It stigmatises them as a group. As it is drafted, the bill has failed to take into consideration the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child or the European Convention on Human Rights. It also breaches these treaties by treating young people in a more restrictive way than the rest of the population.

In fact, such a proposal to detain individuals against their will where they have not been charged with a crime is without precedent, perhaps with some notable exceptions in terms of our human rights' record on asylum seekers. These young people, as I repeat, have not been charged with a crime. It is without precedent in this state, and it is a measure that should not be taken so lightly. With the potential for individuals to be denied those human rights based on their drug use, abuse or addiction, the use of mandatory treatment for illicit drug use is not a compelling argument.

Some may note that we already have some mandated treatment options administered by the police and the courts under current legislation. However, the distinction here is that those mandatory treatments are enforced only in situations where somebody has been charged with a criminal offence. Furthermore, those mandatory options do not single out one single demographic of our society for such an approach.

Legislation such as this and the surrounding debate only serve to fuel community fear, misinformation and stigma. It serves further to marginalise people—in this case, young people—who do take drugs, and it is the antithesis of true harm reduction. For one thing, the government has not actually provided any justification in this legislation as to how the harms associated with detention, such as stigma, recidivism and the breakdown of their relationships, will actually be mitigated.

Furthermore, the bill fails to treat dependence on alcohol, focusing only on illicit drugs. As we know, alcohol is actually the biggest drug challenge facing our young people. It also imposes judicial processes to manage a young person's health treatment. The government defines 'dependence' according to that definition laid out by the World Health Organization, which is that it is a chronic health condition, but fails to continue to use the health imperatives for the rest of the bill. It completely fails to treat these conditions of addiction and abuse primarily as a health condition. This makes absolutely no sense.

Engagement with the justice system can also have negative consequences for those young people, such as disengagement from their family, education, social networks and their employment, and it can actually be one of the most significant predictors of engagement further on with the adult justice system. What exactly are we trying to do with this bill when those are the implications?

Importantly, the bill also assumes that the person most likely to bring a young person to the attention of the court is that young person's parents. But a parent's primary role should be to support a young person and maintain a relationship that is built on love and trust. Trust and love are deeply undermined if not eradicated by the bill, and the approach of this legislation has been shown in many cases to cause irreparable harm to that young person and their relationships with their family.

Also, why on earth does the government think that a young person would be comfortable seeking support from their family—the very people who should be able to support them—when it comes to their drug dependence, when they know that possibly their loved ones could have them detained against their will as a result of seeking that help?

Another significant failing of the bill is that it is silent on the right of a young person or their parents, where the parents are not the instigators of the order, to appeal against it, to challenge it or to seek to have that order revoked or terminated. There is also no mention of any requirement of the courts having any responsibility to regularly review orders and modify them, considering changed behaviour or circumstances.

I find it interesting as well that a government that has badged itself as a fiscally and economically responsible new government proceeds to promote mandatory detention when mandatory detention of these drug dependent young people, or of anyone, is known to be one of the most expensive and ineffective approaches to drug and alcohol issues. Research shows that involuntary clients require greater resources in terms of time and staffing to provide that effective treatment.

On top of this, it is unclear who will be providing the treatment. If treatments are to be provided by the state or non-government alcohol and drug treatment sectors, noting that the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services opposes this bill, the government would need to make a commitment—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Can we have some quiet and show some respect for the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, please continue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government would need to make a commitment to significantly increase their funding to the sector as they cannot even currently meet the demands of the voluntary clients, some of whom are begging for treatment.

Finally, I would like to pre-emptively address suggestions that perhaps the solution to this issue of violating the human rights of young people would be to make mandatory detention apply to everyone, not just young people. Proponents of this idea have simply made a bad idea worse. Instead of making it better, they are just making it bigger. Mandatory detention is expensive and ineffective. Detaining people without charge is appalling. This is no way to treat somebody who has a significant and serious health issue.

To conclude my remarks on this bill, I find it extraordinary that the sheer number of deaths and illnesses that are associated with legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, has not seemed to provoke a similar policy response. Yet we know—particularly from this new government it seems—that when compared with the use of illicit drugs, that indeed is the most pressing health concern.

The approach of the Marshall government flies in the face of evidence, reason and care. Personal safety, social responsibility, harm minimisation and informed choices are the most practical and effective approaches to illicit drug use. Prevention and early intervention, as well as voluntary treatment programs, have the best chance of decreasing the misuse of and dependence on drugs and alcohol.

These are the approaches that should be the focus of any reasonable or responsible decision-maker. Unfortunately, these are not the approaches that win votes prior to elections in marginal seats where such campaign slogans as 'a war on drugs' and 'sniffer dogs in schools' have the effect of providing the few votes they need in the few suburbs they want. Yet these have long-term implications for our state in really tackling the serious issue of drug addiction and drug abuse.

We know that there are cases where parents are crying out for help, and it does seem like a solution to have the mandatory detention of their children to get them the help that they need, but we know that in the longer term those hard cases are making bad laws, and this here today is a very bad law.

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