HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 June 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:48): I can indicate to the house that the opposition will be supporting this legislation but does reserve the right to look at amendments between the houses, as all the feedback we had expected to receive from stakeholders has not arrived because of, I understand, the very tight timetable that this bill has been put under, including briefings as recently as yesterday for the shadow minister in the other place.

However, this piece of legislation is updating a 1984 bill. The 1984 Public Intoxication Act repealed the Alcohol and Drug Addicts (Treatment) Act 1961 and it has not been looked at since then. In June 2012, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse commissioned a review of the Public Intoxication Act 1984 in response to the Deputy State Coroner's findings in the inquest into the deaths of six Aboriginal persons who died between 2004 and 2009.

The review, by independent reviewer Dr Chris Reynolds, was published in December 2012 and made 22 recommendations. There was a three-year gap, and in 2015 the government responded to Dr Reynolds' review and accepted nine of the recommendations, and 13 others were accepted in principle. Of the nine recommendations that the government accepted, two have not been directly implemented into the bill as they are covered by already existing legislation. These include recommendation 3, relating to initiatives to reduce access to alcohol as regulated by the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, and recommendation 22, which relates to the possible application of guardianship orders for people who are chronically intoxicated and whose mental incapacity qualifies them for such an order, which is sufficiently covered in the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993.

The bill is focused on controlling and minimising harm caused by already intoxicated persons and proposes to make the following amendments. It proposes to expressly state the objects and principles of the act, and that is in section (2). Secondly, it proposes to expand the definition of drugs to include alcohol and any other substance. The number of new synthetic drugs that are being developed, the chase that is on between the health department and those who are concocting these new drugs, is never-ending and, unfortunately, the effects of a lot of these illicit drugs are unpredictable. They may, in some cases, be within the law and quite legal, but they are still causing profound health effects.

I remind the house that this bill is not about changing the criminal law, it is about changing the public health law because this is a serious public health issue. The harm caused by alcohol is massive in our society, and I think everybody has to have some responsibility for that. I have some serious issues with people turning up at our EDs who are absolutely drunk and are then abusing and, in some cases, attacking our hospital staff. That is absolutely despicable. How you control that, how you make these people accountable for their actions, and how you even perhaps make them pay for the cost of this self-inflicted harm that they are doing and their behaviour as a result, I do not know.

The need to make sure that we make people accountable for their outcomes is vital though. I know that in 2004 we abolished the drunk's defence as a defence under the criminal code. That changed most of the legislation so you could not use being intoxicated, whether it is through alcohol or through other drugs, as a defence when being charged with the vast majority of offences. I think the only exception was that if you actually killed somebody, you could then have that charge laid as manslaughter and not murder.

The drunk's defence is something that we have abolished in this place, and I think the vast majority of people out there would say, 'Well, you are the one who goes out and takes the drugs or drinks the drink. You should be aware of the outcomes of your indulgences. You should still be held responsible for those outcomes, even though at that particular time you might have been affected by those drugs or the other things you have been taking.' I think everybody out there would think that that is a reasonable thing to have put in place. I would remind the house that this is not about criminal convictions or arresting people, it is about detaining people quite differently and it is a public health issue.

The other thing that the bill is focusing on is to insert a broader definition of a public place, similar to that in the Summary Offences Act and the tobacco control act. Interestingly, the definitions of a public place are quite different in the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 where the definition of a public area or public place means:

…an area or place that the public, or a section of the public, is entitled to use or that is open to, or used by, the public or a section of the public (whether access is unrestricted or subject to payment of money, membership of a body or otherwise);

That is in the Tobacco Products Regulation Act. In the Public Intoxication Act, which is using the same definition as in the Summary Offences Act, a public place includes:

(a) a place to which free access is permitted to the public, with the express or tacit consent of the owner or occupier of that place; and

(b) a place to which the public are admitted on payment of money, the test of admittance being the payment of money only; and

(c) a road, street, footway, court, alley or thoroughfare which the public are allowed to use, [despite the fact that the] road, street, footway, court, alley or thoroughfare is on private property;

With two definitions of the same thing, no wonder we have the Acts Interpretation Act. We need to perhaps sort out those definitions across our legislation but, for this particular piece of legislation, that definition I think is more than suitable.

The bill also then goes on to extend the maximum period of detention by police from 10 hours to 12 hours but retains the 18-hour maximum period of detention for declared sobering up centres. If the minister can give us a list of those declared sobering up centres in her response to this speech, that would be good. If the minister can also tell us the number of men, the number of women and the number of children who are being detained by police in these sobering up centres or in police cells, I think those figures would be alarming for anybody. The time and the effort, never mind the cost, of detaining these people is something we all have to be aware of. If this legislation helps us do that, all the better.

Perhaps the minister could also tell us if there are any cross-payments between the police and the Department for Health because the police cells are being used or the watch house is being used. I think, in other places, there are private facilities, but perhaps we could get some information on that. The increased detention time is something we need to be aware of. If somebody needs to be detained that long, the level of intoxication in the first place perhaps needs to be assessed. Do people need to be transferred to a medical facility rather than a police facility? What is the cost involved with that?

We were up in Coober Pedy with the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee not long ago. The mobile assistance patrols were out there. They had been particularly helping Aboriginal people who were getting intoxicated. They were picking them up and taking them back to their sobering up centre for a minimal cost. There was a very small cost. The alternative was, if the police came across these people, they were arrested, in some cases, then taken to the police station. In other cases, an ambulance was called, and they were taken to the hospital at massive cost.

I congratulate the mobile assistance patrols—the Aboriginal patrols—not only in Coober Pedy but also in Adelaide. In Adelaide, the mobile assistance patrols work Monday to Thursday from 4pm to 3.30am the following morning. From Friday to Saturday, they work from 4pm to 3.30am and, on Sunday, they work from 7.30pm to 3.30am. They (DASSA) are funded by SA Health and the Adelaide City Council. They do a terrific job of picking up people and making sure they are not only not harming others and causing problems but also not harming themselves, which is very important.

It is important to have these mobile assistance patrols and the ability to pick these people up, whether or not it is the police. Certainly, with the numbers of dry areas we have around the place now, I think there is a real need to make sure that people who are intoxicated are not then inadvertently or deliberately, in some cases, going into dry areas and compounding their own problems. I know that, in recommendation 5, Dr Reynolds talks about dry areas. He says:

Dry areas and the expiation notices associated with them compound the problems of chronically intoxicated persons. While they are important strategies for reducing violence and preserving local amenity, there is a need to consider diversion programs as an option to prosecution where considered appropriate.

That is where the MAPS programs really come to the fore. I understand that some of the NGOs, particularly Anglicare, are looking at providing extra facilities where people can go if they have problems with substance abuse, particularly with intoxication. We need to make sure we try to not only deal with the immediate incident but also educate the people who are involved about the consequences of their actions. There are long-term health effects not only for themselves but also, in some cases, for pregnant women when foetal alcohol syndrome and other health consequences can be extremely severe and life shattering not only for those who are intoxicated but, perhaps in some cases, for their offspring.

The need to make sure we use dry zones to preserve our local amenity I think is very important. Certainly, we have dry areas down at Glenelg, and they work very well. I congratulate the police in Glenelg on the work they do. I hope that their police station does not have their hours cut back, because we do need them. We need them down there, and we need them on the foot patrols to enforce the dry areas. They do a terrific job, and I think they do it very well. They do it in a balanced way and a very fair way.

Another issue in relation to mobile assistance patrols and police picking up people is: what happens with the repeat offenders? If someone is an alcoholic or addicted to drugs, they are obviously going to be repeat offenders. It would be interesting to find out what the plans are to refer these people off to agencies, to NGOs, and perhaps even to compel them to undertake some sort of detox or some sort of rehab. Is there a plan in place for that?

The cost to the health system of drunks and drug-intoxicated people turning up at the EDs is extreme, not only in financial terms but also in physical terms. My son is an RMO at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and he has told me some of the stories about the things he has had to put up with—and security guards down there are vital. It is a shame that we have to do that, with the cost to the taxpayer of providing those security guards, and the threat that our doctors and nurses are under is completely unacceptable. That is where I think there has to be some fallback onto the people who are presenting as either drunk or on drugs.

The legislation is relatively straightforward, and the last issue I need to talk about is new section 13, which will protect people involved in the administration of the act from civil liability, provided their actions are in good faith. It is reasonable legislation. Intoxication, drug use, drug abuse, alcohol abuse—never mind smoking ordinary tobacco on top of that—are costing the community billions and billions of dollars every year, so we need to do something about it. This is an update of an act that has been around for over 20 years now.

All 22 of the Reynolds recommendations are fairly straightforward. The government has, in principle, accepted a number of those and others, and we look forward to seeing them being implemented as soon as we possibly can. Certainly, we are doing all we can to make sure that people are not getting into this state in the first place and that, if they are in this state, they are not causing a hazard to themselves or to the rest of society. With that, I commend the bill to the house, but I say that the shadow minister in the other place will be seeking some further feedback from stakeholders and that some changes may be needed to represent those views.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:02): I rise to support this bill. As the member for Morphett has said quite eloquently, this is not a law and order crime-busting bill—this is a bill about public health. However, I want to reflect a little bit on its impact on police operations.

Data from South Australia Police shows that about 3,000 people are apprehended under the act each year. I do not know whether that is rising or falling, or whatever. I know that it was an act I used a lot when I was on patrols, and it is used to protect people from themselves. It is also used as a method of protecting people from others, to be quite frank, so the police do use it in an operational sense in that way. Obviously, we have come a long way from the far distant regime of the drunk and disorderly offence, when people were brought before the court simply for being intoxicated—which is a good thing.

Fifty per cent of those apprehended identify as Aboriginal, and 50 per cent are discharged from police custody to home or into the care of a friend or relative. As the member for Morphett has said, it does provide an expanded definition of a drug for the purposes of the act. The Reynolds review did recommend that the reference to 'alcohol' or 'a drug' as the cause of the intoxication should be replaced by a more general approach. It is enough that the person is simply intoxicated and, by that fact, incapable of taking proper care of himself or herself. Again, as the member for Morphett said, this does cover the proliferation of different types of synthetic drugs we see, which are impossible to keep up with by way of regulation if, indeed, we wanted to.

Persons intoxicated in a public place who are unable to care for themselves should be protected from harm, and others should be protected from harm, regardless of the intoxicating substance. The bill does amend the definition of 'drug' to include alcohol or any other substance that is capable, either alone or in combination with other substances, of influencing mental functioning. As a consequence, the bill also removes the power to declare by regulation any substance to be a drug for the purposes of this act. It is simply unnecessary and, I think, a much more workable approach if we are going to consider this a public health matter, rather than a law and order matter.

The other thing this bill does is to extend the maximum period of detention by police to 12 hours, but to continue retaining the 18-hour maximum period of detention for declared sobering up centres. Currently, police officers are required by the act to discharge a detained person when they have recovered and can take proper care of themselves, but before the expiration of 10 hours. This is in response to recommendation 8 of the Reynolds review.

The bill does extend the maximum period of detention by police to 12 hours, but it does, as I said, retain the 18-hour maximum period. This is in line also with advice from SA Health addiction medicine clinicians that a person should be sufficiently recovered after 12 hours to take proper care of themselves. I think it just gives that extra little bit of time so that we do not create more of the problems we are trying to solve. There are currently five sobering up units. I think this might answer one of the member for Morphett's questions.

There are currently five sobering up units approved by the minister and gazetted as places for the purposes of section 7(3)(b) of the Public Intoxication Act. These approved facilities are located in Adelaide at the Salvation Army sobering up unit, in Ceduna at the sobering up unit, in Port Augusta at the Port Augusta Substance Misuse Service, in Coober Pedy and in Stepney at the Integrated Youth Specialist Substance Misuse Service, which is operated by Centacare Catholic Family Services. These sobering up services are funded under the SA Health Specialist Drug and Alcohol Assessment and Treatment Services program for the provision of services up to 30 June 2020. With those few words I commend the bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:06): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for my opportunity to speak on the Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2016. I will obviously reiterate a little of what the member for Morphett said, but certainly not most of it. The opposition agrees with this bill in principle. There is a lot in it that we are very supportive of, but we do reserve our right to suggest some improvements, and that will happen, as the member for Morphett said, between the houses once we get all the responses back from the consultation we have sought and we have had another opportunity to discuss it together.

Interestingly, this is very much about trying to find a workable cross-section between places and actions. It is not about a dry zone. It is not about locking up areas of the city or anywhere else and saying, 'You just cannot drink there.' It is about saying that, in certain designated public places, if you are inappropriately under the influence of drugs or alcohol, essentially you are committing a crime and you could face some consequences. Dry zones do work very well, and I would like to refer briefly to the city of Port Augusta.

Several years ago (and I would guess it might well be seven or eight years ago), the Port Augusta City Council asked to have a dry zone for all of the CBD area of Port Augusta—and, in fact, beyond the CBD area—so that no-one was allowed to consume alcohol or have open containers of alcohol in public places, footpaths, parks or anywhere like that. It was very difficult to get majority public support. Certainly, a lot of people opposed it and a lot of people were in favour, and it took quite a while to get people to really understand the process. Former mayor, Joy Baluch, led the charge on this issue.

While there are still certainly people who do not support the concept, as time has gone by support overall has grown and it has worked very well. A lot of effort in Port Augusta, and in many other places of course, goes into trying to address inappropriate behaviour by people due to intoxication. The dry zone supports that a lot. We have a mobile assistance patrol in Port Augusta that works incredibly well. The member for Morphett was talking about how good a job it does down at Glenelg, but it does a tremendous job at Port Augusta too.

We have a very active drug and alcohol management group in Port Augusta which puts a lot of time and effort into addressing these issues. People with a broad range of skills from a cross-section of the community come together to do that. We have the Special Operations Group working in Port Augusta. Special Operations Group is the name of the company. The colloquial name for the Special Operations Group is the K9 Patrol.

I would like to just take this opportunity to say that, of course, K9 does not sound very good, but the reality is that that extremely highly trained dog, under the control of one of the locally highly trained and very responsible and respected handlers, rarely leaves the vehicle. In fact, I can tell you that if people want to see the canine at the centre of the K9 Patrol, they actually need to go to one of the ovals in Port Augusta to see it being exercised and playing ball with a handler.

They will have a much higher chance of seeing the dog out of the vehicle than when it is at work anywhere. While the name might seem a bit scary, the Special Operations Group actually does do a good job in Port Augusta. Of course, it is important to point out that council is the glue that holds all of this together. It is never perfect. We certainly still have problems. There is no doubt about that, but people locally are working very hard to try to address these issues.

We also have temporary dry zones in many other places in Stuart, such as, I think the main street of Wilmington, where I live. On the night of the rodeo, which is the biggest event of the year, typically about 2,000 people from the surrounding district and much further afield come to Wilmington. Usually, the council, at the request of the Rodeo Club, agrees to make the whole main street of Wilmington a dry zone. There is a wide range of different ways of dealing with this sort of thing.

Coming back to the bill that we are discussing at the moment, to my mind one of the key things that I have not mentioned already is the expansion of the definition of 'drug' to include alcohol or any other substance that is capable of influencing mental functions. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Another one is a broader definition of public place. The member for Morphett has gone into a fair bit of detail describing how that would be done under this bill if it is passed.

The last of the key things that I want to touch on is the extension of the maximum period of detention by police from 10 to 12 hours. That is not without its unintended consequences. As the member for Little Para said, this is primarily a health bill. This is primarily about trying to help people. It is very much about trying to reduce drug- and alcohol-fuelled violence or the potential for it. It is about trying to reduce self-harm through the use of drugs and alcohol. By self-harm, I am not talking about slashing wrists, necessarily, but negative health effects, which are very real.

It is also about trying to reduce the cost to taxpayers. There is an enormously high cost through a wide range of government services, from police on the spot all the way through to long-term health impacts, which taxpayers bear, when people harm themselves or others through the consumption of drugs or alcohol. A couple of the unintended consequences that I want to just touch on are the impacts on police. I say this as shadow minister for police: there will be a cost upon police.

Our prisons are already outrageously overcrowded, so police cells are from time to time used as prison overflow and remand overflow in a way that was never intended. The city watch house, obviously comes to mind. Largely, that is a correctional facility these days. It is very regularly treated exactly that way. Other suburban police cells at Holden Hill, Port Adelaide and other places are used as overflow for prison capacity, people who should be in the Correctional Services system not being held by police.

Keeping in mind my support for the principle of the bill, which is to try to stop people from overimbibing, it is very likely that this would put extra unintended pressure on our police. Because they are already under pressure from the overcrowded prison system, this will give them extra work and quite likely extra people they are holding, if nothing else, for potentially a longer period of time. Deputy Speaker, you might know that when people are held in police cells they must have nonstop 24-hour police officer attention on them.

It is not like going to a correctional facility, where there are Correctional Services officers and there is a system in place and an extra person does not necessarily mean extra work; it means work that people are there to do already, unless you are pushed up right against the margin, as we often are in our state. But in a police context, if somebody is to be held in a police cell, a police officer must be there the whole while that person is being held there. It means that that police officer is not out on the street and that they are not doing other duties that they need to be doing.

Let me wind up by saying that, yes, while we are broadly supportive of the principle of this bill and that, yes, while we reserve our right to propose changes between the houses, I take extensions to the deprivation of liberty extremely seriously. It is not something that I would entertain, and it is not something that my colleagues would entertain lightly. We think that is very serious and we will consider this bill very closely and very responsibly in the context of those things that I have said in my contribution.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (16:16): I also rise to speak in support of the Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2016, which seeks to amend the Public Intoxication Act 1984 to implement recommendations from the review of South Australia's Public Intoxication Act 1984. In June 2012, the government committed to reviewing the Public Intoxication Act 1984 in response to recommendations made in the 2011 Deputy Coroner's findings following concurrent inquests into the death of six Aboriginal persons who died between 2004 and 2009 and also in the findings delivered in November 2011 following the inquest into the death of a young Aboriginal man known as Kunmanara Brown.

The government engaged the expertise of the public health law academic, Dr Chris Reynolds, who in 2015 handed down the findings of his review. His findings were consistent with the government's policy that public intoxication is in itself not a criminal offence and should be managed accordingly. Dr Reynolds is regarded as a leader in the field of public health law in Australasia and has advised the Australian government and state governments on various aspects of public health law and policy. He is indeed well published on a number of topics and specialises in community engagement and consultation.

I understand Dr Reynolds consulted widely, including visiting Ceduna and Port Augusta, where he met with local agencies, communities and service providers and visited facilities and had the opportunity to see the problems of the public intoxication issue firsthand. The government has accepted nine of Dr Reynolds recommendations, and 13 recommendations were accepted in principle. Of the 22 recommendations made by Dr Reynolds, none were rejected. While Dr Reynolds in his report noted:

In many ways the changes anticipated to the Act will not greatly change current practice, since the day to day administration of public intoxication has anticipated a number of my recommendations…

I would suggest, however, that from his review and the determination there will be the ability to protect people involved in the administration of the act from civil liability, providing their actions are in good faith. 'In good faith' means that as health professionals, for instance, you are dealing with the interaction between people in a fair and open way and that there is honesty, sincerity and best endeavours no matter the outcome.

The Reynolds review recommended that the act protect those involved in its administration, such as police and centre staff, from civil or criminal liability provided their actions are in good faith and done for the purpose of complying with it. This is recommendation 12. In reference to the Reynolds review and protection from liability, the government has undertaken to look at civil matters, and rightly so.

This provision is designed to protect health professionals who are administering the act, to give them extra assurance that they can conduct their work without fear of prosecution; that is, using that in good faith. Whilst those at the coalface, such as persons working in the sobering up units, will be direct beneficiaries of this clause, I would also suggest that many health workers will be beneficiaries of these changes. These include nurses, midwives and ambulance officers, to name just a few. I know they will be grateful that they can act in good faith, as they manage their charges for the best possible outcome.

These situations can be quite precarious. I have been part of fractious situations, when faced with intoxicated patients in emergency services, as they struggle and lash out, for instance, and it can be a powder keg situation. As a serving officer in SA Ambulance, I am experienced and know all too well the confrontation and unpredictability that alcohol-fuelled situations can bring, for instance at a multiple vehicle accident, where triage and quick first-aid attention is necessary but which can turn into a situation of high emotion and violent eruptions as a result of skewed behaviour at the hands of alcohol. It can also occur in sadder situations of squalid living conditions, where infants are at risk. It is a challenging situation, as I know firsthand, when you are faced with another layer of unreasonable behaviour due to alcohol.

To have the flexibility and the backup of this law, to act in good faith, inspires confidence in professionals and their duties. To now look at treating public intoxication as a public health issue is certainly refreshing because, as those who work in the health industry would know, this is a situation that can be dealt with in many ways to be mitigated as far as addressing the health issues that these people may face. Alcohol works as a toxin in the body, and it can damage every organ. Chronic drinkers can develop liver disease, they can end up with mental health problems and depression, and there can also be alcohol induced suicide or, in reverse, suicide which then brings on public intoxication issues. It is a situation that can also give rise to domestic violence, which is something I know this house is intent on dealing with, and rightly so.

To have this change viewed as a public health issue and to have those protections so that health professionals and those working in this area who deal with people and public intoxication can deal with them without fear or favour and in good faith is certainly refreshing. With those comments, I support the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:23): I would like to make a small contribution to the debate on the Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill. By way of background, in 2012 the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse commissioned a review by Dr Chris Reynolds, which was published in December 2012; but it has taken such a long time. Why has it taken so long for these recommendations to come to this place?

Mr Duluk: Incompetent.

Mr WHETSTONE: Incompetent, someone said. I feel that it has taken way too long for these recommendations to be brought forward. Nevertheless, the bill is focused on controlling and minimising harm caused by already intoxicated persons and its purpose is to make the following amendments: to expressly state the objects and principles of the act, and to expand the definition of 'drug' to include alcohol or any other substances that are capable of influencing mental functioning.

It is sad that in today's world we do not just live with intoxication in public places, but we are dealing with an ever-increasing use of crystal methamphetamine that is making people more violent and having an impact on people's behaviour that is much more noted in public places. That is, I guess, a sign of the times, but it is also a sign that we need to do more and we need to actually help those people. From what I have seen over a short period of time in this place, my awareness has become much more particular in noticing irrational behaviour, particularly in public places, because I am obviously myself constantly under the watchful eye of both my constituents and anyone who is in a public place. You do have to be mindful of just what risks can potentially be posed.

The bill is also to insert a broader definition of 'public place', similar to that of the Summary Offences Act, and to extend the maximum period of detention by police from 10 hours to 12 hours but retain the 18-hour maximum period of detention for declared sobering up centres. Again, as the member for Stuart was saying, this is putting extra pressure on our prisons and holding cells. It is putting added pressure on police; they are already overstretched. Our corrections facilities are at capacity, and that does concern me.

Particularly, being on the Public Works Committee has really opened my eyes up to how full our corrections centres are and the ever-increasing number of people who are offending and being put into prisons, particularly for this type of offence: committing criminal acts in public places due to intoxication and drug inducement. That leads to, again, as other members have said, irrational behaviour and violent behaviour that, in this day, is totally unacceptable. This place is a very strong and loud advocate for domestic violence prevention through some great initiatives, and White Ribbon is one that I do take note of and am an ambassador for.

We need to be much more proactive when it comes to public nuisance, and particularly the definition of 'intoxication' or 'drug induced'. Sometimes I wish that my electorate office was a dry zone because many of us here would understand that we are visited regularly by people who do have social issues and alcohol and drug issues. Sometimes they come to the electorate office as a way to let off steam.

I know just recently I have had an increased number of people who have come to my office and let off steam. It is a great thing that we have had upgraded security in recent times in the offices, because I know, after we have had a visit by people who are intoxicated, there is a lathering of spit over those glass panels when they vent their anger and frustration that the current government is not addressing their needs.

Mr Duluk: My office is like that every day.

Mr WHETSTONE: Every day. I would like to take the opportunity to speak about some of the impacts of dry zones in the electorate of Chaffey, particularly in the Riverland. There are no dry zones, as I understand, in my Mallee region, but what we do see is that dry zones are being put in place primarily on riverbanks and public spaces. We are very fortunate to have nice gardens and grassed areas, lots of shade, benches, shelter and protection, but these have also historically been a bit of a gathering centre for those who do, on some certain days, collect a cheque and decide that they are going to make a bit of a nuisance of themselves in consuming the brown bag, if you like, under the arm.

What it means is that I am a supporter of these dry zones, particularly in the Berri Barmera Council area. I am a supporter, and I write letters of recommendation so that they can get those dry zones implemented or continued. Berri Barmera, in particular, has a beautiful riverbank and beautiful grassed and lawned areas, and they need to protect them. People, including locals, can go into those areas confident that they will be safe. We need tourists to be unaware of potential risks from people who are intoxicated in those public spaces, particularly in the tourism areas. The Riverland is a great tourism destination, and we want to make sure that those people remain safe and unapproached by people who are socially challenged through alcohol or drugs.

Berri Barmera has dry zones that I think are there because there are some areas of that council area that are a little tucked away—nice, grassy, green shaded areas that are a bit of a haven for people to come along and make a nuisance of themselves. I notice that in Renmark Paringa they have the town centre dry zone. It is a beautiful riverbank, a beautiful riverfront, and it is probably the best vantage point in the Murray-Darling Basin. To make sure that everyone is safe and that tourists enjoy a great uninterrupted experience, that dry zone is there for the good of our region.

The Darnley Taylor dry zone, behind the rec centre at Renmark, is another area that has been preserved as a dry zone to make sure that it is safe, particularly the thoroughfare with the sporting grounds, the rec centres and the like, and that it protects those people. Of course, the Paringa dry zone is a beautiful little spot on Murtho Road which has been made a dry zone for a very good reason—that is, it is outside the Paringa Hotel. The Red Dog bar has produced a lot of good times, but historically there were a few nuisances who would endure a great time at the front bar but then go out and make a nuisance of themselves on the lawned garden area at the front of the hotel.

The implementation of dry areas should reduce the incidence of public drinking and antisocial and petty criminal behaviour by those public drinkers and drug takers, with the consequence of increased safety for the general public—and I think that is what it is about. It is about ensuring that the general public can go into those beautiful areas of the Riverland towns. Loxton Waikerie is another council area that has dry zones for the protection of their people, but it also ensures that when visitors come they do not have a great experience tarnished by antisocial behaviour.

I think that these recommendations are overdue, I will continue to support them. When my councils come to me looking for extensions of dry zones, I always look at them very carefully and the impacts they will have. I want to make sure that we have public safety, primarily on riverbanks, and that people continue to have a great experience.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:34): I rise in support of the government's Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill. It is no secret that my 17-year-old son lost his life to a one-punch incident on a public street in the inner south of Adelaide. I have made it my life's work to ensure that I do all I can to ensure that no other family goes through the same pain that my family and I, in particular my husband, Neil Davis, have gone through. Neil has since spoken with nearly 70,000 young South Australians about our loss under the banner of the Sammy D Foundation and in our son's name. He has done this as a way of highlighting the consequences of alcohol and substance misuse and abuse and, in particular, the consequences of violence.

It is also no secret that alcohol is a prime cause of violence in South Australia. In 2013-14, the victim reported rate of the influence of alcohol or, less frequently, another substance being a factor in assaults was 57 per cent. Preventing alcohol-related antisocial behaviours and assault or other serious consequences takes a concerted and coordinated response, addressing behaviours and choices across the lifespan. I feel that our parliament is united in the desire to ensure a safe community and works cooperatively in the main to achieve this end.

It is vital to provide education regarding the consequences of antisocial or violent behaviours as well as to provide information regarding the effects of drugs and alcohol. Also proven to be effective in challenging the culture of alcohol-related violence is positive role modelling of respectful and nonviolent behaviours to our youth. The government must take control in regulating the sale and supply of alcohol as well as regulating and enforcing internal and external environments. Much work has been done in this regard over the past five years with social awareness programs and liquor licensing reforms being front and centre.

People for many reasons become affected by substances to a degree that they are unable to look after themselves. They are at risk of injury and even death as a consequence of their own, or combined with someone else's, behaviour. Incredibly, approximately 3,000 people are apprehended under the Public Intoxication Act each year as a way of preventing harm. Of those people, 50 per cent identify as Aboriginal. This is a huge over-representation and is another aspect of this problem that needs to be addressed.

Public health expert Chris Reynolds conducted a review of the act in response to Coroner's findings from a 2011 inquest and made several key recommendations, two of which I would like talk further to: firstly, to adopt a definition of a public place similar to that in the Summary Offences Act 1953. The Reynolds review recommended that the act should apply to land or premises that are not necessarily public places, provided the owner or occupier of the land or premises does not object. The government accepted this recommendation. The bill inserts a definition of a public place that aligns with the Summary Offences Act 1953. A public place includes:

a place to which free access is permitted to the public;

a place to which the public are admitted on payment of money; and

a road, street, footway, court, alley or thoroughfare which the public are allowed to use.

The second recommendation was to amend the act to expressly state its objects and principles. At present, the act is silent on its purpose, apart from its long title as:

An Act to provide for the apprehension and care of persons found in a public place under the influence of a drug or alcohol; and to provide for other incidental matters.

It is important that we pay close attention to this part of the act as many people, particularly young and inexperienced visitors to an entertainment area or those who are seriously impaired by the influence of a substance, are unable to care for themselves. They are at enormous risk if moved on and ignored rather than cared for.

There is actually a lot of work focusing on public safety that has been and continues to be done in this regard. Non-government organisations and local, state and federal governments link arms with the private sector and citizens to provide solutions to supporting and assisting at risk individuals in public places. Some of the important work being done centres on the presence of trained youth workers and volunteers in public spaces providing assistance and advice, facilitating safe passage out of entertainment precincts such as accessible and affordable public transport, and well-lit taxi waiting areas or NGO-supported minibuses. Sobering up units are also vital as an adjunct to harm minimisation principles.

The Reynolds review recommended that the act should expressly state the objects and principles that articulate its scope and intentions. In its response, the government accepted this recommendation. The bill introduces objects and guiding principles explaining that harm minimisation and protecting public health is the primary goal of the act. This is important. These objects and guiding principles include that the primary concern is to be given to the health and wellbeing of a person apprehended under this act, and that a person detained under this act should, where practicable, be detained in a place other than a police station.

The majority of states, and all territories, have decriminalised public intoxication. However, public intoxication remains a criminal offence in Victoria and a partial offence in Queensland. Consideration of decriminalisation of public intoxication in Victoria was undertaken with an extensive inquiry into public drunkenness, conducted by the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee. This review recommended delaying decriminalisation of public intoxication until adequate services were established and did not recommend that powers of detention be applicable to sobering up units.

It is interesting to note that South Australia is the only Australian state or territory, where the legislation provides staff at declared sobering up centres, or an equivalent, the authority to detain intoxicated clients. There is no single fix to address alcohol-related harm, including antisocial behaviours or violence. Sadly, too many people's lives are ruined forever across a range of situations—be it domestic violence, public misadventure, or assault. There is a saying that you cannot legislate against stupidity. Interestingly, I think this is one piece of legislation that can contribute to just that—the prevention of stupidity, or at least the minimising of the consequences of.

I am keen to watch the progress of this bill and support further work in this space, which will always be deeply personal to me and my family. I am pleased to offer my support to the minister on this and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:41): I would also like to make a contribution on this bill and note my support, and that of this side of the house, on the main aspects of the proposed bill. Firstly, I would like to make a brief comment on the length of time it has taken for this legislation to come before the house.

It was back in November 2011 that the Deputy Coroner delivered his findings on the concurrent inquests into the death of six Aboriginal persons who sadly died between 2004 and 2009. In response to those findings, in June 2012 the government committed to a review of the Public Intoxication Act 1984. The independent review was completed by Dr Chris Reynolds, and his report was delivered in December 2012. It was not until 2015 that the government finally released its response to the Reynolds review, so who knows what it was sitting on for a couple of years.

Draft legislation followed in February 2016, with the bill before us today introduced to the house just a couple of weeks ago, on 23 June. It is almost five years since the Deputy Coroner delivered his findings which initiated the review of the Public Intoxication Act and only now, in July 2016, do we finally have an opportunity to consider legislative change. For me, it is a very sad reflection on this government's commitment to legislative reform and efforts to improve the wellbeing of South Australians.

Notwithstanding the tardiness of the government on this issue, as I have already stated, I am generally supportive of this bill. The Public Intoxication Act is critical to helping protect a person who is found to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and, as a result, cannot take proper care of themselves. Importantly, it provides for their apprehension and care if they are found in a public place. The amendments provide an opportunity to modernise the act, which has operated without material amendment since its inception.

In particular, I welcome the expanded definition of 'a drug' for the purposes of this act. The bill makes an important catch-all amendment by expanding the definition of 'a drug' to include:

…alcohol or any other substance that is capable, either alone, or in combination with other substances, of influencing mental functioning.

The strengthening of protection for people involved in the administration of the act from civil liability, providing their intentions are in good faith and done for the purposes of complying with the act, is also a positive step, and I am supportive of the government's position not to provide broader immunity from criminal liability.

Under the act, police officers are required to discharge a detained person when they have recovered and can take proper care of themselves, but before the expiration of 10 hours. The bill extends the maximum period of detention by police to 12 hours, but it retains the 18-hour maximum period of detention for declared sobering up centres. However, the Reynolds review recommended:

The existing period for detention should be replaced with a general sobriety test requiring the release of a person as soon as they are sufficiently sober as to no longer present a risk of harm to themselves or others, though with a new specified maximum limit of 24 hours.

During his review, Dr Reynolds found:

…a number of people raised concerns about instances where detained persons were released at the expiry of the specified period though still quite intoxicated. This presents a dilemma for workers etc conscious of their duty of care but also aware of the rights of the person detained.

I understand that SA Health addiction clinicians do not believe a period of 24 hours is necessary. They consider that a person should be sufficiently recovered after 12 hours to take proper care of themselves. Indeed, Dr Carolyn Edmonds, an addiction medicine specialist at the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, was on radio just last week endorsing this view. Dr Edmonds emphasised the value of a shift from 10 hours to 12 hours, saying that 'an extra two hours…can make a difference in terms of metabolism of alcohol'. Hopefully, an extra two hours is sufficient to address these concerns, but it is an area that will need to be closely monitored to ensure we do have the balance right.

The overriding principle of the Public Intoxication Act is harm minimisation. The bill introduces objects and guiding principles to clearly articulate its scope and intentions. Whilst I consider this a worthwhile amendment, the SAPOL numbers that the minister outlined in her second reading speech are a cause of concern. Inserting a clause to better describe the intention of the act will not help deliver tangible results to the South Australian community.

As the minister stated, and we all know, the data from SAPOL shows that approximately 3,000 people are apprehended under the act each year, and half of those apprehended identify as Indigenous South Australians. Around 3,000 apprehensions each year, every year. I believe this figure has been fairly stable year after year. Of course, that 3,000 figure is a marked over-representation of Indigenous South Australians who, as I said, constitute about 50 per cent of those apprehended.

We know Indigenous South Australians make up about 2 per cent of our population, so they are quite clearly over-represented in the 3,000 persons who are apprehended every year. I do appreciate, as we all do in this house, that the over-representation of Indigenous Australians within our criminal justice system, our social and wellbeing centres and statistics is all too high and has long been a issue for many years, but it does provide some insight into the issue of alcohol and the use of other substances amongst Indigenous Australians and the effectiveness of the government's South Australian Alcohol and Other Drug Strategy 2011-2016.

The 2014 progress report on the strategy, which is the most recent publicly available report, noted:

The estimated number and rate of alcohol-related hospitalisations among the Aboriginal population increased slightly between 2007-08 and 2009-10, and decreased over the remainder of the reporting period, with 2012-13 rates similar to those in 2007-08.

Essentially, there has been no substantial change in hospitalisation rates over a five-year period. I would be very interested to see if the figures in the 2015 progress report are more promising, but unfortunately we are still waiting for this report to be released. The 2014 report was released at the end of 2015 and, given this government's track record, I can only assume we will once again be left waiting until Christmas. Recommendation 5 of the Reynolds review states:

Dry areas and the expiation notices associated with them compound the problems of chronically intoxicated persons. While they are important strategies for reducing violence and preserving local [areas], there is a need to consider diversion programmes as an option to prosecution where considered appropriate.

The review found:

When breached, the dry area laws also have the effect of further impoverishing drinkers (in so many cases indigenous drinkers) or further complicating their lives if they do not pay the expiation fee. The significance of this is illustrated by the fact that Ceduna Council (for example) estimates receipts of around $40,000 annually in relation to dry area expiations. This is over 90% of its total expiation fee income.

These findings are also supported by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. In its submission to the liquor licensing review, the ALRM notes that its workers found that, in October 2014, there were a total of 25 community members with unpaid fines totalling $90,000, and in July 2015 there were 28 community members with a total of $299,000 of outstanding fines. Whilst these figures include expiation notices for sleeping rough and other offences—not just public intoxication—it does highlight the limitation of issuing fines. The ALRM submission supports proposals that:

…people in the grip of grog be treated under a medical model of intervention and diversion through the Public Intoxication Act and detoxification in public hospitals and alcohol rehabilitation centres…

I appreciate that expiation notices have an important role in acting as a deterrent in maintaining dry areas. However, I also believe it may not be the most effective approach in all circumstances, particularly for those offenders with chronic alcohol issues. I note with interest the government's response to recommendation 5 of the Reynolds review:

SA Health with South Australia Police will consider the practicalities and the resource implications of diversionary programs for breach of dry area controls in the circumstances.

I look forward to the outcome of those considerations. It is important that legislative frameworks are well supported by effective policy and programs. Achieving this balance is critical to delivering on the principles of the Public Intoxication Act. Without effective community support and a government committed to preventative health measures, we will continue to fail our most vulnerable.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:51): I rise to speak on the Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2016. I will not traverse the comprehensive matters covered by the member for Morphett, who is our representative covering health matters in this place. I am impressed to have heard the contribution of the member for Davenport because he does certainly look at the matter more broadly. I want to raise two things.

First, this is an act without any purpose stated in its legislation. That is a little unusual. In following the previous acts that have covered intoxication in a public place, addiction and more old-fashioned words that are displayed in the previous legislation, it appears largely to do two things; one is to protect an individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs who is in a drunken or intoxicated state, and the other is to protect other people who are in a location in a public place from offence, noise, smell and general unacceptable behaviour that might make their presence in that location unpleasant or unbearable, etc.

Let us remember what we are trying to deal with here: first, removing the inconvenience and unpleasantness for other people in a public area, and second, hopefully, giving some consideration to the person who is intoxicated. However one might consider in a subjective way that that person is creating their own intoxication, the reality is that, in that state, they are vulnerable obviously to the approach and predatory nature of others. They might be robbed, they might be assaulted and, not surprisingly, they might hurt themselves and injure themselves if they were to get into a fracas or even just fall into a gutter.

All of these things make them a vulnerable party and sometimes put everyone else around them in an unpleasant position. How do we deal with it? The police come along and take the person into care under the Public Intoxication Act, as it will now be, and they hold them in care. In a limited way, governments make provision for the facility that they are to be held in and, if they are full, they go to a prison. They are held in a watch house or in cells attached to a police area, where there are other people being taken into custody and charged and where people are visiting and the like.

My concern with this legislation is that extending the period from 10 to 12 hours only leaves these people in prisons in unacceptable accommodation while they sober up. It relieves the police from having to make arrangements, if the person is seriously intoxicated, to transfer them from a cell to a place at which they can get some supervision; supervision if they vomit, supervision if they convulse, supervision if they need to have health interventions to protect themselves against their own self-inflicted harm.

I am a bit concerned about that because it seems to me an avoidance of what the government should be doing. Instead of keeping people longer in prison cells, what they should be doing is two things; one is making sure they have enough facilities at night, and we are talking 3,000 a year that they take into care under this act. They may only keep some for a short time but let us assume a 10 to 12-hour stint is needed for a large portion of them.

We are still not talking about many a year across the state, so surely this is something that could be accommodated by the government, and if they are not prepared to do that then do not leave these people in a prison, sometimes in an environment which is quite revolting. That is not a reflection on the prison guards or on the police, if they are in a police cell; it is a fact that this person may be intoxicated, drunk, vomiting, smelly, urinating, defecating, all of these things which are unpleasant for the people who work there and any other person who might be held in custody with them. I think they are not addressing the serious problem and holding them in a prison cell is not going to make it any better.

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS (Taylor—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (16:56): I would like to thank all members for their comments and contributions, particularly the member for Fisher and the other members who have outlined their personal connection to the story of why this act is an important piece of legislation to bring before the house. The Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2016 seeks to amend the Public Intoxication Act 1984 to implement recommendations of the review of the South Australian Public Intoxication Act 1984.

This act provides for the apprehension and care of persons in a public place who are under the influence of a drug or alcohol and are unable to take proper care of him or herself. To say the act does not have a purpose is, I think, not true. It is to protect the general public when unfortunately they cannot protect themselves when they are so under the influence of a substance, and it has operated largely unamended since its introduction in 1984.

Data from South Australia Police shows that approximately 3,000 people are apprehended under the act each year and that about 50 per cent, as the rest of the chamber has canvassed, who are apprehended are identified as Aboriginal, and about 50 per cent are discharged from police custody to home or the care of a friend or relative. The government released its response to the Reynolds review in 2015, which included a commitment to make a legislative change to include all of these facts in the bill.

The bill amends the Public Intoxication Act to expressly state the objects and principles of the act, provide an expanded definition of 'drug' for the purposes of the act, adopt a definition of a 'public place' similar to the Summary Offences Act 1953, extend the maximum period of detention by police to 12 hours but retain the 18-hour maximum period of detention for the declared sobering up centres, and protect people involved in the administration of the act from civil liability providing their actions are in good faith.

In relation to some of the matters that have been raised in the chamber during speeches, I would like to talk about the declared sobering up centres. There are currently no sobering up centres under section 5(1)(a) of the act. The passage of this bill would be a precondition of declaring of sobering up centres, specifically the protection from civil liability. This may be revisited following the passage of the bill. However, South Australia Police concerns about the detention of a person must be addressed as well as other concerns from stakeholders. There are five sobering up units approved and gazetted under section 7(3)(b) of the act, and these are Adelaide, Ceduna, Port Augusta, Coober Pedy, and Stepney.

In relation to the question about the number of people apprehended, I cannot at this time provide the gender and age profile of those people, but I will seek advice from police about that and provide additional information as it becomes available. Additionally, people apprehended under the act are not held in prison; they are detained by police until they are sober. I would like to conclude my remarks by again thanking everyone for their contributions.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS (Taylor—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (17:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT