Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Bills Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill Final Stages Final Stages Consideration in committee of message No. 147 from the House of Assembly. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the council is agreeable, I propose to address all issues so that we can see my proposed course of action in totality. The Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill 2018 passed the House of Assembly with eight amendments, following its consideration in this chamber. Five amendments were substantive, with three further amendments consequential from those amendments. Of the two substantive amendments that were opposed by the opposition in the other place, the first sought to remove the two-year statutory requirement for the legislation to come into force. As I said, this was opposed in the other place and the Leader of the Opposition in this place has indicated to me that this amendment will not be supported. The government will not insist on this amendment. The second amendment opposed by the opposition in the other place addressed the requirement for a reviewing clinician. The amendment passed in this place required that the clinician be a psychiatrist. The government considered this too restrictive as the needs of the child or young person may be far broader than could be supported by a medical practitioner with psychiatric expertise. The amendment passed in the other place replaced 'psychiatrist' with 'medical practitioner'. The Leader of the Opposition in this place filed an amendment narrowing this scope, replacing 'medical practitioner' with 'medical practitioner with appropriate expertise in dealing with paediatric substance abuse or mental health issues'. The government accepts that the definition should be narrowed but still considers that this amendment is too narrow for the potential needs of the child or young person. Consequently, I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that, building on his wording, the council might consider an amendment that the medical practitioner have appropriate expertise in addiction, psychiatric or paediatric medicine or other expertise related to the order. The phrase 'related to the order' obviously links it to the particular child who is involved. For the issues that that child faces, the medical practitioner would need to have relevant expertise. In most cases, one would expect that to be in the listed specialities, but the proposed amendment put forward is to provide the flexibility to make sure that the intent of the parliament, which is to ensure that there is medical supervision of these orders, is relevant to the child or young person who is subject to the order. I am advised that the opposition supports this amendment. Accordingly, I filed it in my name. The government considers that the bill will now have the necessary flexibility to be applied in each case individually. The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am pleased to hear that the government will be supporting our amendment to revert to the original proposal in regard to the time frame. I think it is worth placing on the record some comments in relation to that. The establishment of youth treatment orders was a key election commitment from this government, and even prior to that the scheme was introduced as a private member's bill by the now Attorney-General. Despite the substantial length of time they have had to work out the final details, we still have very little information on how these orders will work in practice. We still have no idea how much putting these orders into practice will cost, what the model of care will look like and where these children will actually serve out their detention orders. The only aspect of the policy that has been funded is the cost of legal representation in this year's budget, and nothing else. It is abundantly clear that the government introduced this bill and then stalled on it for months because they have not done any of the groundwork to properly implement the policy. This must be why the government in the other place reintroduced their amendments to skirt around the standard process of enacting a bill within two years of its passage. We think that is an important provision that needs to stand because otherwise there is no length of time, necessarily, that this would be implemented in. If not within two years, if not before the next election, when? Four years? Eight years? Ten years? None of that was clear. Any of those options were possible and the opposition considered that that was unacceptable. After all, for something that the government said was urgent and part of their 'war on drugs', and for the government to say that they needed the law to not come in during this term of government at all, was simply remarkable. The government claimed they wanted to pass this legislation swiftly, but already we are 18 months since the election and the government still wanted more than two years to enact this legislation. I am very pleased that they have now reconsidered that and that the standard two-year provision will in fact be in place. The opposition is pleased that there have been some important reforms to this bill, in terms of putting in some basic protections and requirements for treatment and care of children who are subject to these detention orders. We are also very pleased that the minister has moved his compromised amendment and, as stated, the opposition is pleased to support that amendment in regard to what type of medical practitioner and what kind of background and expertise they need to have to ensure that children under detention orders are receiving appropriate care. The Hon. C. BONAROS Legislative Council The Hon. C. BONAROS: SA-Best, too, supports the compromised amendment that has been introduced and is pleased with the position in relation to the two years and echoes the sentiments just expressed by the Hon. Clare Scriven in relation to that. We have had 18 months to work on the model of care that will be implemented by the government in this space. It is something that we need to do and to act on quickly so there is absolutely no way we would have supported any measure that would have prolonged that beyond the two-year mark. It is certainly our hope that this government will have that model of care available and that that model of care and those services will commence well prior to the two-year mark that is mandated in the bill. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: By way of clarification for members, the government has not been waiting for the passage of this legislation before it started the work on the model of care. That work is well underway, and I expect it will be released for broad community consultation in the not too distant future. The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A question in relation to the minister's clarification: could he just give a little bit more detail as to what 'the not too distant future' might mean? The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it means early next year, but it is certainly well developed. My understanding is there has been some targeted consultation, but it is certainly our expectation that it is a conversation the whole community should be involved in, and the model of care will be available for broader comment. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just for the purposes of your ability, Chair, to appropriately convene this place, we will be supporting the minister. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I should have thanked the honourable members who have indicated support; that is appreciated. Amendment No. 1: The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: That amendment No. 1 be disagreed to. Motion carried. Amendments Nos 2 to 5: The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: That the House of Assembly's amendments Nos 2 to 5 be agreed to. Motion carried. Amendment No. 6: The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: That the Legislative Council disagrees with the amendment made by the House of Assembly and makes the following amendment in lieu thereof: Page 10, line 37 [clause 7, inserted section 54L(1)(e)]—Delete 'psychiatrist' and substitute: medical practitioner, with appropriate expertise in addiction, psychiatric or paediatric medicine or other expertise related to the order, Motion carried. Amendments Nos 7 and 8: The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: That amendments Nos 7 and 8 be agreed to. Motion carried.