HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Controlled Substances (Nitrous Oxide) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2019.)

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (10:32): Today, I rise to speak in support of the Controlled Substances (Nitrous Oxide) Amendment Bill, which will amend the Controlled Substances Act 1984. In doing so, I commend the member for Wright for bringing this bill to the house, and I also commend him for his commitment to keeping people safe in our community, particularly our young people, and for demonstrating that commitment through concrete action to bring about real legislative change that will make a difference.

This important bill rightly aims to restrict the sale of nitrous oxide bulbs, commonly referred to as nangs, in South Australia to young people who are misusing them. The bill would create an offence for the purposes of selling nitrous oxide to anyone under the age of 18. It would also make it a requirement for sellers of nitrous oxide to keep a record of persons to whom they sell nitrous oxide and to request identification. This information would then be maintained in a register.

This bill would bring the regulation of nitrous oxide into line with how similar substances, such as solvents and aerosols, which are also easily misused, are managed. The bill would also increase current penalties specific to nitrous oxide. Whilst nitrous oxide has many legitimate uses, including as a propellent in cream dispensers and as an anaesthetic, its misuse is alarmingly widespread.

Earlier this year, together with the member for Finniss I co-hosted, on behalf of the shadow minister for education, a parliamentary briefing and gathering with Encounter Youth. I think it is fair to say that all who attended that briefing were deeply impressed by their work. In my case, I am very grateful for their work. Having spent some of my teenage years in a way that I could have benefited from the support of an organisation like Encounter Youth, I have spent a number of years worrying about my son and stepson as they, as so many young people do, set out on their first forays to the city late at night and as they headed off to schoolies.

As I mentioned at that parliamentary briefing, I was indeed so worried about one son and his mates at schoolies that I invented an excuse about them possibly needing more food for the weekend and travelled to where they were staying at Port Elliot, just to see how things were going—just, of course, to see how things were going.

On the morning that my son drove down there, a journey which also greatly exacerbated my worries, I called my friend Belinda. Belinda Uppill and her husband, Nigel Uppill, who are both incredibly experienced youth workers, had volunteered for years at schoolies with Encounter Youth, and her description of how they cared for young people, keeping them safe and encouraging them to make good choices, set my mind at ease. Of course, I still went to their accommodation, but with slightly less panic.

Following this briefing and gathering, together with the member for MacKillop I worked with Encounter Youth to organise a tour with fellow parliamentarians of the work they do on Hindley Street. Again, I was incredibly impressed by their work and their support of our young people. I take this opportunity to wholeheartedly thank them and wish them well for their 20th anniversary, which they celebrate this year.

On visiting Hindley Street in the wee hours, I was deeply shocked by the small canisters that I saw all over the ground and even more shocked by the volume and prevalence of young people using them. I understand that nitrous oxide (nangs) provides users with a fleeting, euphoric high that can also cause loss of coordination, dizziness and, in some cases, permanent nerve damage. I learnt about just how easily these nangs can be obtained. I am deeply grateful that the member for Wright has taken up this issue. It is an issue which we should all be concerned about and one on which we should all take a stand.

The prevalence of use and accessibility presents an utterly unacceptable risk to young South Australians. My colleague the member for Wright has listened to the concerns of our community on this issue and has responded with these sensible legislative reforms. I am sure that many parents and caregivers will be grateful for the bill—this concrete action to keep our young people safe.

I understand that police have raised concerns about the possible presence of nitrous oxide as a contributing factor in motor vehicle accidents and that doctors warn that its use amongst young people is on the rise. Despite these concerns from our community, these warnings from police and the medical profession and the failure of existing legislation to curb its misuse, I understand that this government refuses to support the bill.

I was in Hindley Street with a number of Liberal members when we saw these nangs scattered on every street corner and down every laneway. We walked past them repeatedly that night on the tour with Encounter Youth. I am astounded that those opposite may now choose to walk past the solution, to walk past a mechanism to keep our young people safe. The member for Wright consulted widely on this bill, including with a range of organisations, including SANDAS, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Encounter Youth, the Law Society, AMA, Adelaide West End Association and many others.

Given the importance of this bill in protecting young people from harmful substance abuse, it is incomprehensible that this Liberal state government would block it. However, it goes beyond that. It is petty politics at its worst. There is obvious support within those opposite for this important reform, and I know this from my conversations on Hindley Street with a number of those opposite. We had Christopher Pyne opining for a ban just weeks ago. Many of those sitting opposite know that it is the right thing to do. Many of those opposite share my concerns about the safety of our young people.

Today, I urge them to stand up and speak out on this issue, and I urge this government to urgently rethink their position. Young people in South Australia, their parents and their caregivers deserve it. It is incumbent upon each of us to protect young people from the damaging effects of nitrous oxide abuse. To do this, we need the strongest possible measures available to us. Those measures are contained within this bill, and it should be passed by this parliament. I urge those opposite to support it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (10:39): I rise to speak on the private member's bill, Controlled Substances (Nitrous Oxide) Amendment Bill 2019. I thank the member for considering this matter and acting on the concerns that have been raised in the community. It is not a new issue; it has been very much around for the last couple of years. I think there have been various attempts to look at whatever is a new drug or a new drug of choice, especially amongst our young people, but that does not mean, regrettably, that the private member's bill will actually capture the most expedient and efficient way of managing this issue. Let me explain why, in the circumstances, the government will not be supporting the bill.

The Controlled Substances Act itself already contains a number of controls on the sale and supply of volatile solvents, of which nitrous oxide is one. For example, the act allows for an age limit for sales of a volatile solvent to be prescribed by regulation. It is already an offence to sell or supply a volatile solvent to another person if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person may inhale the solvent or on-sell it to another person who intends to inhale it.

The government acknowledges that there has been concern expressed about the misuse of nitrous oxide, particularly related to its sale by convenience stores within the CBD entertainment precincts. Already we have heard through contributions made today the concern regarding empty capsules being observed in Hindley Street. Therefore, the government intends to introduce a number of measures via regulation to address the misuse of nitrous oxide, while keeping in mind that this is a legal product with legitimate uses.

The private member's bill contains a provision stating that the prescribed age is 18 years. On this side of the house, we do not have an issue with that continuing to be a circumstance and an important measure. However, it is a measure that can be undertaken by regulation, which the government intends to do and I have already made public statements in that regard.

However, the government disagrees with the proposal contained in the bill that would compel sales of nitrous oxide to be recorded by the sellers. The sales of nitrous oxide would have to be recorded for every purchase outside sales for medical purposes. The seller must record all the contact details of the purchaser, including recording their identification, the quantities sold and the directions given for the safe use of nitrous oxide, plus the records must be kept for at least two years. I think it would be quite evident to members the enormous task that would impose on sellers.

There are a number of issues with the proposed record of sales. Firstly, this type of requirement places an extensive and unnecessary administrative burden on retailers selling—it must be remembered—a legal product. The requirements of the bill are more onerous than the requirements placed on professional pharmacists recording purchases of pseudoephedrine, a product that has been demonstrated to be used for illicit drug manufacturing. The impost far outweighs the risk the product presents.

The requirement would be difficult to enforce. Already, we have consulted with the police in relation to this matter, particularly in relation to the online space where I am advised a large number of sales occur. The police would need to physically check the registers, which would be a resource-intensive exercise. Frankly, it is of dubious value when it comes to preventing the misuse of nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is not the same as, say, a controlled precursor, where tracking suspicious sales may help law enforcement to identify illicit drug manufacturing. It is not an offence to possess nitrous oxide, as it is a legal product. Therefore, recording the details of purchases is unlikely to assist law enforcement to identify offenders.

Lastly, it risks not only criminalising a section of the public buying a product for legal use but also over-regulating nitrous oxide to such an extent that it would push young people onto riskier substances. This last point is supported by Encounter Youth, who have vast experience in dealing with young people who may use legal and illegal substances. They are concerned about young people moving on to illicit drugs or substances with a much higher risk profile than nitrous oxide.

By contrast, the government intends, as we have already publicly stated, with the guidance of the Controlled Substances Advisory Council—which the mover of the motion may not have yet identified or considered as necessary, but they are there for good reason—to enact a series of practice measures swiftly via regulation aimed at preventing sales to persons under the age of 18 years, prohibiting late-night sales by retail premises and regulating the display of nitrous oxide in retail premises.

I understand that the council is meeting today to consider recommendations that we have put regarding the management of this issue by regulation. Following that proper comprehensive process, clearly, we will consider the council's advice on the matters that we have raised and listen with interest to any other recommendations it wishes to recommend to us as a government. Certainly, before further decisions are made on this matter, the parliament has the right to manage regulations in any event and to disallow them if they are considered to be inconsistent with what is necessary.

Whilst I acknowledge the interest that has been shown by the member moving this bill, in the circumstances, it will not be supported by the government. We are acting to deal with this issue within the envelope of the Controlled Substances Act and the prohibitions and offences that already exist.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (10:46): I rise to support this important piece of legislation that has been put forward by the member for Wright. This is an important issue. We are seeing the number of sales of nitrous oxide to young people—not for baking products and not for dental procedures but for inhalation as a drug—going up and up and up. We are seeing the number of outlets, either in a physical space or in an online sales space, proliferate in the community. The member for Wright has done exactly what should be expected of members of parliament: he has identified an issue, he has brought to the parliament a proposal to address that issue, he has consulted widely in doing so with a whole number of different people and he has brought here to the parliament some very sensible proposals to address this issue. He should be absolutely commended for that.

We are seeing young people in the community being harmed by this substance every single day. The government's approach in opposing this legislation is nothing other than political stubbornness. I could not believe a lot of what we just heard from the Attorney-General of this state. I could not believe it. She is opposing some of the measures of this bill on the basis that it is too hard for the sellers of these products. Well, poor diddums! If people who are selling these products—who I think are scum—to young people in the full knowledge of the medical harm, the health harm that it is causing those people, are going to have to go through some hoops in terms of making sure that they are not selling to the wrong people, who cares? Who cares what burden is placed on them?

There is a carve-out for dentists and other medical users who might need these products. That is carved out in this legislation. For the Attorney-General of this state to say, 'Oh dear, how horrible for the sellers of these products,' is wrong. The reports that we have seen of these sellers are nothing short of disgraceful. These are people who are online saying, 'We are the baker boys. We are the baking supply company,' but it is all directed at young people. It is all directed at sales in sociable hours. It is all directed at, 'We will get this product to you rapidly—within half an hour or an hour. We will get you your supplies of these baking products.'

I do not think there is any other type of baking product that you can get delivered within an hour, except for nitrous oxide. I have some great bakers in my electorate. I have never heard of them running out of nitrous oxide and needing that supply within an hour. This is complete rubbish. The people who are selling these products are charlatans. They deserve to be put out of business, and I do not give two hoots whether this puts more burden on them.

The other argument from the Attorney-General is that we are less worried about this drug than other drugs. That is what she seemed to be saying. This is a preposterous argument from somebody who came to this parliament promising to put up the penalties for cannabis. If you have that argument for nitrous oxide, that we do not want to have people moving on to more dangerous substances, then why did you come here with the completely opposite proposal in regard to cannabis, saying we need to put harsher penalties on that?

There is no proper thought through the government's opposition to this bill. There is nothing other than the fact that it was proposed by the Labor Party, so the Liberal Party needs to oppose it. It was proposed by the member for Wright, so the member for Bragg needs to oppose it. That is a disgraceful way for this parliament to behave. This is a bill that has been properly thought through. It is a bill that has been properly consulted. It is a bill that if we pass it today can immediately go to work in helping to address this issue.

If the Attorney-General wants to move amendments to it, then I am sure the member for Wright would welcome that, if we got to the committee stage to do so. I recall, only maybe two weeks ago, the Attorney-General saying on another piece of legislation, 'We should proceed to the committee stage so we can work out the issues with it.' Here, she is going to stop that from happening because it was proposed by the Labor Party and she is going to come up with her own solution.

If it were not for the member for Wright putting this on the agenda, I think nothing would have been happening. I think nothing would have been going to the controlled substances committee and counsel to look at this. I think that this has only come about because of the issues raised on this side. I think that it should have been something that was broadly supported by this parliament, but yet again we are seeing the political stubbornness that is putting party politics ahead of outcomes for this state. I think it is disgraceful. I wholeheartedly endorse this legislation from the member for Wright, and I think it is shameful that the government is opposed to it.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (10:51): I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's bill again and respond to some of the things that have been said in this place this morning. I begin, though, by thanking the members for Reynell and Kaurna for their very spirited speeches and all the people on this side of the place for their support of this bill.

Let's make no mistake, though. This was supposed to go a very different way from the way it has. This was a beautiful set piece engineered by those on that side of the chamber. It was going to kick off with an opinion piece by Christopher Pyne talking about the dangers of nangs and how something needed to be done and then handballing it on to the member for King, whom Christopher Pyne referred to as 'a dynamo in this space' and who was, I think, planning on bringing a government bill in here to in some way enforce the same kinds of things I already have in the bill before this place.

Unfortunately, the government was caught napping. The member for King was on the same tour that Encounter Youth conducted of Hindley Street that many members on this side of the chamber attended as well, including the member for Cheltenham, the member for Reynell and the member for Elizabeth. We saw nangs in huge numbers on the corner of Morphett and Hindley streets on that night, and I know a number of us went away and thought, 'We actually need to do something about this.' Encounter Youth made it abundantly clear to us in the wee hours of that morning that these were being used and that they were very dangerous.

I went away and I did something about it. Unfortunately, the dynamo that is the member for King went away and did nothing about it, so when Christopher Pyne wrote his glowing opinion piece about how nangs were the scourge of society and the member for King was going to do something about it, there was nothing prepared. I introduced my private member's bill in this place, which I had consulted on very extensively. I would like to use this opportunity to list some of the groups I did consult with, and they include Encounter Youth.

I must say that the nature of the consultation I had with Encounter Youth appears to be at odds with the nature of the consultation the Attorney had with Encounter Youth. I had their support to do something about this. It would appear that the Attorney has interpreted their words as a plea for harm minimisation. That is not what I took away from my conversations with Encounter Youth. They made it clear to me that, although this may not be the most dangerous drug on our streets, it is still a dangerous drug and that something needs to be done about it.

I also consulted with the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services, the Law Society of South Australia, the South Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, the Adelaide West End Association, the Sammy D Foundation, and Northern Area Community and Youth Services. I consulted with all these groups before I brought this bill into this house, and that is more that can be said for what the government has done.

We heard from the Attorney that they have spoken to the police and to Encounter Youth. No doubt, that has been done after the fact. It has all been done after the Attorney made comments in the media that they intended to deal with this issue through regulation. The feedback I received from my consultation was very clear: something needs to be done. The Attorney tries to tell us that this can all be done through regulation. Maybe that is true, but maybe it is not.

What I can say is that if we had had the support of the government for my private member's bill from the outset, we could have something in place right now. I understand that schoolies has been and gone. We could have had something in place for schoolies, but because this government did not want egg on its face and was embarrassed that it had been caught napping it decided not to support my bill for purely political reasons; instead, it has tried to put through some regulations—regulations that have barely been consulted on.

This is incredible from a government that always tells us it is strong on drugs, strong on crime and strong on law and order. Here we had a fantastic chance for bipartisanship; instead, we have nothing, and I think it is a disgrace. I thank the people on this side of the house for their support of my bill.

Ayes 21

Noes 24

Majority 3

AYES
Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. (teller) Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E.
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT