HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 December 2018.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Before I give the minister the call, I advise that there is an amendment to clause 1, amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-1], which seeks to change the short title of the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate to the council that it is my intention that the committee consider clauses 1 to 6 inclusive, which I understand would pick up both an amendment by the Hon. Connie Bonaros at clause 1 and also, I think, an amendment by the Hon. Kyam Maher at clause 2, and then report progress. It is my understanding that a number of members would like to further consider amendments put by the government. If it would be of assistance to the council, I thought I would give some context to those amendments.

The Guardian for Children and Young People, Ms Wright, has had continued interest in the bill and circulated a letter on 8 February to members of both houses, which included a document authored by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. The government has given careful and close consideration to all feedback received on the bill, including that from the guardian, particularly in formulating a set of amendments to the bill that were filed in this house on 29 November; in other words, before the letter of 8 February.

In response to the comments in the Castan Centre document, I ask members of this council to note that the government's amendments make it clear that assessment, treatment and detention orders are a measure of last resort and, in the case of a detention order, must be for the shortest period appropriate and be reviewed by the court at predetermined intervals. This is found in amendments Nos 18, 27 and 32.

Also, in amendment No. 9 the paramount consideration must always be the best interests of the child. The child is to have the assistance or representation of an advocate, including a legal practitioner, if desired. The court generally cannot proceed to make an order unless satisfied that this is the case, which is in amendment No. 34.

I also ask members to note the extension of the regulation-making power proposed in amendment No. 63, particularly the power to require assessment, treatment and detention facilities to comply with prescribed agreements, codes or charters or obtain specified types of accreditation. Amongst other things, should this bill pass, the government will consider making regulations requiring compliance with international and other agreements related to child protection or general human rights instruments affecting children.

Also, as the guardian identified in her email to all members, state authorities are already obliged under section 5 of the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016 to adhere to these agreements and instruments.

The government has filed a second set of amendments to the bill to attempt to further address concerns expressed by the guardian and other stakeholders. Amendment No. 1 in that second set will make it clear that assessments of children and young people must be undertaken by medical practitioners. This will ensure that the assessment is conducted with the benefit of the skills of a qualified medical practitioner and in compliance with relevant professional obligations applying to medical practitioners.

Amendment No. 2 will require the Youth Court to be provided with an appropriate care and treatment plan before it makes a treatment order in respect of a child or young person, so the court knows what treatment is proposed for the child or young person.

Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that, unless a child or young person is already in the youth training centre, the child or young person cannot be detained for the purposes of an assessment or treatment order other than in an accredited assessment or treatment service. This reflects the reality that some of these children and young people will already be in the youth training centre when orders are made under this legislation.

The government has also decided to support some amendments filed by the Hon. Ms Bonaros on 26 February 2019. These amendments are for the purpose of providing the child or young person with government-funded legal representation in proceedings before the Youth Court under new part 7A and also if they wish to appeal against the order of the Youth Court. Appeals are to the Supreme Court under section 22 of the Youth Court Act.

In relation to amendment No. 18, it has been suggested the application of youth treatment orders to those already detained in the youth training centre is discriminatory. It is the government's view that the bill is not discriminatory. The bill does not establish any new criminal sanctions or impose additional penalties on children and young people who are subject to detention in a training centre. It provides added scope to order medical assessment and appropriate therapeutic treatment where specialist clinicians judge that this is required. I again thank the guardian for her comments, and I look forward to her continued contributions and those of other stakeholders in the future.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, do you wish to move your amendment?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, Chair. I intend to use this as a test clause, obviously, for the next six amendments, so I can speak to them all now, if you like. Can I move the amendment standing in my name and speak to all six amendments?

The CHAIR: Yes, that is fine.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, line 4—Delete 'Youth'

The proposed amendment, as I said, is a test clause for the first set of amendments, and so to that end I will speak to them as a package. It seeks to delete the word 'youth' from the bill and thereby broaden the scope of the bill to minors and adults alike. SA-Best's position with respect to mandatory drug rehabilitation has been on the record for a long time. We remain committed to voluntary and involuntary assessments, treatments and rehabilitation as important elements of a suite of measures to tackle drug dependency head on.

It is our policy that this bill should provide assessment and treatment to people of all ages with controlled drug dependency problems, and not just youth. It is our long-held policy that courts should have the ability to make assessment, treatment and detention orders for people of any age, again including our youth. We certainly support the courts being able to order a person of any age to attend a nominated assessment or treatment service and to make a detention order in the manner that has been described by the minister should that person not comply with the assessment and/or treatment order.

I think it is important to point out that we make no apology for the policy position that we take. We do not support the argument that mandatory drug rehab fails to treat drug addiction or dependence as a health issue but only as a criminal issue. In an ideal world, people with drug dependency would seek treatment themselves, and many eventually do. I absolutely acknowledge the complete lack of voluntary services that do exist and the impact that that has on individuals who are seeking assistance, and I do not think that these amendments undermine that in any way. If anything, what we are trying to do is ensure that we have adequate services, both voluntary and mandatory.

As I said, in an ideal world, people with drug dependency would seek treatment themselves, and many eventually do, but we do not live in an ideal world; we live in a world—and indeed a state—where drug addiction is rife. As I have said before, Adelaide and our major town centres continue to have the unenviable title of 'ice capitals' of Australia, and our children are not immune from those challenges.

It terrifies me as a parent that there will come a day when my child, like everybody else's children, will inevitably be faced with trying life-threatening drugs. It terrifies me as a parent that if my child takes that road and is unable to accept or recognise offers of help, I as their parent, as their mum, will not be in a position to put forward a case for mandatory drug rehab. I know that fear. I am acutely aware, as other members no doubt are, of the perils of drug use and, by extension, drug addiction.

The amendment seeks to empower those who want help to seek orders for treatment for the drug dependent person who is unlikely to seek this themselves. I think that there are circumstances where it is the only form of circuit-breaker that is available to families who are struggling with somebody with a drug dependence or addiction.

I am mindful of using the term 'addiction' because I know we have recently had some stakeholders come in and tell us about the stigma associated with language use in this area. Certainly, while it is easy to use 'addiction'—it rolls off the tongue—there is a move towards using 'dependence', so I am trying very hard to refer to this non-stigmatised terminology in this contribution.

As I said during my second reading contribution, we recognise that young people in particular need specialist drug assessment and treatment services. As I understand it, it is for that reason, and the minister can confirm this, that the Youth Court not only supported the policy proposed by the Liberal government but suggested that judges be able to refer youth for mandatory treatment. It is a tool that I think has been lacking in our jurisdiction, and in the Youth Court jurisdiction, for a very long time and one that would have benefited many who passed through the doors of that court up until this time.

As I have alluded to, it is not just our youth who sometimes require that sort of circuit-breaker. I will talk to the issue of treatment facilities when we come to it. I know the minister has alluded to it. When it comes to treatment, mandatory or otherwise, it remains our position that those treatments should be provided in appropriately well-resourced treatment facilities and not detention centres, so I am pleased that the government has seen fit to pick up on that and support the amendments to that effect.

I think it is important to note on that front that this is not an opportunity to lock a minor up at Cavan and hope that somehow their drug addiction will miraculously be dealt with. The government will be responsible for ensuring minors are provided appropriate treatment at appropriate and well-resourced treatment facilities, including residential and non-residential facilities, and our hope is that we would at least consider the merits of that same principle applying to our adult population with drug dependence issues.

With an increased proportion of treatment episodes being provided to older people, that is, people who are 40-plus, it is critical that people of all ages have access to high-quality accredited assessment and treatment options, including residential and non-residential treatment and rehab services, and it is absolutely critical that the government properly resources those services now in readiness for the commencement of this bill, whatever form it ultimately takes.

We have talked previously about the Swedish model. Sweden is one of a dozen European countries that have made drug rehab treatment and detoxification programs, to which their courts can mandatorily divert people, a key element of their drug strategies. As I have said before, Sweden's program is stringent but one in which people are helped in terms of their drug use. Importantly, the emphasis is on getting people off drugs quickly and, therefore, permanently. It is a striking example of what can be achieved when drug abuse is tackled with strong, decisive and targeted policies.

Of course, direct, adequate and, most importantly, prioritised government funding is key to the success of any such strategy. Again, I remind honourable members that we have the unenviable title of methamphetamine and ice capital of Australia. SA-Best's position is that this alone ought to be evidence enough of why we must support these measures and why we must do more to tackle head-on the war on drugs and addiction.

On that note, I would like to remind members that New South Wales Labor recently announced its drug policy, which would give police and health professionals the power to refer patients to compulsory assessment and treatment, and that is something that we certainly will watch keenly. Again, this is a test clause for the first six of the amendments that I am moving, and I look forward to hearing from honourable members in that respect.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. This bill gives effect to the government's commitment to provide the option of court-ordered assessment and treatment for children and young people with drug dependency problems who refuse to seek treatment voluntarily, where there may be a danger to themselves or others and where no other appropriate and less restrictive means are available.

Adult drug dependency is no less serious a problem than youth drug dependency; however, requiring a person to attend mandatory assessment and treatment for their drug dependency is itself a serious step and one that this government considers should extend only to the most vulnerable in society.

The government acknowledges that children and young people are less able to take care of themselves and less able to appreciate the need to do so. Adults, by contrast, are more likely to have the reasoning faculties to understand that they have a drug problem and to determine for themselves that they ought to obtain appropriate treatment for that problem.

The bill reflects parental and community recognition of the need for early intervention to address substance abuse. Evidence from experts suggests that early onset or frequent substance use during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of developing mental health problems, as well as a range of other adverse outcomes such as educational underachievement, health problems and social difficulties during later adolescence and early adulthood.

The honourable member refers to mandatory treatment for adults overseas and there are examples of mandatory treatment for adults being explored in Australia. At this stage, whilst the government would not support the extension of this bill to cover adults, this is an opportunity for us to look at the operation of mandatory treatment in relation to children and young people.

The bill itself has a three-year review clause. Considering that there are mandatory treatment models being explored elsewhere in Australia—and this is for adults—at that three-year review point, the parliament will have an opportunity to consider the outcomes from this bill and consider the option of extending it to adults. For these reasons, the government is determined that at this stage, given the finite financial resources, only to support a bill which is limited to youth treatment orders.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the amendments that seek to collectively expand the bill to apply to adults. The opposition feels that proper research, planning and consultation should be undertaken before promoting such a broadly expanded treatment order regime which would ultimately change the nature of the bill. I might also foreshadow, for the benefit of the committee, that once we consider the amendment I have questions on clause 1 itself that I will ask after the amendment has been considered.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I indicate that I will not be supporting these amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the record, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We oppose this bill. It simply makes a bad bill broader and, therefore, we will oppose it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is: how many children does the government anticipate will be covered by these orders per year?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I feel a touch of deja vu coming upon me. As I indicated to the honourable member in December, it depends on the model of care.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My next question is—and we shall have deja vu all over again perhaps—what is the model of care that is being anticipated? In this chamber and this parliament, we are being asked to pass a bill that has significant consequences and impacts on the lives of people. So I think the minister owes it to this chamber and to those who are going to be discussing and voting on this bill to outline what the model of care he anticipates will be. How on earth can we properly consider a bill if he will not do that?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What the parliament is being asked to do is to put in place a statutory framework within which a model of care can be developed. The assurances by the Labor opposition in December last year that they would be supporting the passage of the legislation, which we appreciated, gave assurance to the government that the statutory framework will be supported.

Since then the government has established an interagency working group, which is developing a model of care. At this stage it is anticipating operating completely within the bill. If there are changes to the legislation in this place, in the other place or collectively by this parliament then that will be accommodated as they continue to develop a robust, safe and effective youth treatment orders model.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Within the model of care, will the government rule out that young people and children who are subject to the mandatory treatment that this bill will ensure are not housed or accommodated with those young people and children who are in voluntary rehabilitation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would stress some points that I made in December. This bill is not about detention, it is about assessment, treatment and detention. I think there will be a lot of valuable outcomes achieved by children and young people being required to undertake assessment. The honourable member's question was: 'Will no child under treatment be housed with young offenders?' for want of a better word.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: No, not offenders. What have they done wrong?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I was clarifying your question. Your question was: 'Would a person subject to an order under this bill be housed with somebody under youth justice?'

The Hon. T.A. Franks: No.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I missed the question then. Would you mind restating it?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To reiterate my question, my concern is that young people and children who are voluntarily undertaking rehabilitation programs will be housed with those who are not willing to be there and have been made to do so mandatorily. In particular, my concern is that, by co-locating a child who is there voluntarily and a child who is not willingly there, you actually put those children in danger, particularly the child who is there voluntarily.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the development of the model of care issues such as this will be considered. The model of care will seek to link voluntary services. The goal will always be to have a young person, and in due course an adult, take responsibility to move off drug dependency. In terms of whether or not particular services are delivered alone or in the presence of people who are there voluntarily is a matter that would be part of the structure of the model of care and managed by clinicians in the individual case of the child or young person.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: One would have thought that is a threshold question that should have been addressed and that we should have a response to by now. How will the safety of those who are in this voluntary treatment be ensured alongside children who are there unwillingly?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, I do not agree that it is something you would expect to see in a statute. To me, it is the sort of thing that you would expect to see in a model of care, and that is what the interagency working group is working on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I clarify this with the minister: did the minister say, in response to my first question, that the working group started working on the model of care in December? Did I hear that correctly?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think I said since December.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When did the working group start working on this model of care issue?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the working group first met in March.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How many meetings has the working group undertaken? Who are the members of the working group? Have any recommendations been made so far to the minister? What issues have been considered so far, given that putting kids who are there willingly with kids who are not has not been considered?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that there have been two meetings of the interagency working group to this point. The interagency working group consists of key government agencies whose input will assist in developing a robust, safe and effective youth treatment orders model. These agencies will either be directly responsible for implementing the program or represent those most impacted by this new policy.

The group has participation from a range of departments, including the Attorney-General's Department, South Australia Police, the Department for Child Protection, the Department for Education, the Courts Administration Authority, the Department of Human Services (Youth Justice), the Department of Human Services (Disability SA) and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation). SA Health is represented on the group by Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (Women and Children's Health Network) and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist.

In terms of the sorts of issues that the group is considering, the interagency working group will provide advice to the government on an agreed model of care for youth treatment orders in South Australia, drafting instructions for any legislative amendments and regulations that support the operation of youth treatment orders, a thorough risk assessment with risk mitigation strategies, an evaluation framework, project implementation plan and so forth.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To make sure I heard it correctly, can the minister confirm that this working group was formed in March of last year and that they have held two meetings?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I was suggesting that the group was established in March this year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The group was established in March of this year, so has been operational for only two months; is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is correct. It is now May.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister telling the chamber that we have discussed the bill over a period of many months, that the model of care has been something that has been requested by people in this chamber and in briefings previously over many months, and this was very urgent back in December, yet the minister and his department have waited until March of this year to do anything about bringing experts together to discuss the model of care, having known all along that this was such an important issue? Why has the minister delayed this for so long?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is extraordinary that the opposition would criticise the government for delay, considering that it was the opposition that was toying with the idea of sending this off to a select committee, which would have meant another year or two of delay. Of course, once we had the confirmation from a public statement by a member of the opposition that the bill would be supported we were able to start the process of establishing an interagency working group. The fact that that indication of support was in December, the process of establishing the interagency working group—both consideration by cabinet and consultation with departments as to the members of that working group—to me seems quite orderly.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister telling this chamber that it takes four months to set up an interagency working group for something as important as the model of care under this bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That seems more like a comment than a question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Does the minister expect everyone else to really believe that he takes this bill seriously when he said he has been considering this issue over a long period, it was an election commitment, yet he waits four months before doing anything about setting up a working group on the model of care?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we clarify for the record that the time frame for the implementation of that model of care has been two years; is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I should clarify: the government intends that the interagency working group would develop a model of care, which would then be subject to consultation with stakeholders. We expect the draft to be ready by the end of this year and that there will be an orderly consultation period after that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate the point the member opposite is making. One of the criticisms that has been raised with the minister is obviously the consultation with stakeholder groups. I think during the last debate the minister indicated that we were testing whether this legislation was going to pass the parliament before the government went down the path of undertaking those consultation processes. I understand that is still to be the case, except to the extent that the criticisms were raised back in December and the minister has sought to bring forward that process and establish the working group. Is that a fair analysis of where we are now?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government thought it would be most useful to have a consultation with the community and with stakeholders with a starting point for the conversation. That is the reason an interagency working group was established, so that the clinicians and experts in this field can develop a model of care that forms the basis for consultation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And that model of care that will be the subject of stakeholder consultation—so there will be direct input from stakeholders in relation to this—will consider whatever concerns are raised by stakeholders but will also consider the appropriate treatment rehab facilities that are required to get this project off the ground?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes. When we say 'model of care', it involves crafting not only, if you like, the pathways away from drug dependency but also the resources and the facilities that will be required to facilitate that move away from drug dependency.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not like to assume anything, but am I right to assume then that, as part of that process, the minister will also be considering issues of voluntary treatment or the lack thereof? I appreciate we are talking about mandatory treatment, but in terms of that consultation process inevitably you would expect that the issue of voluntary rehab services would also be the subject of consultation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Certainly, the model of care is all about helping young people deal with their drug dependency, so it will need to link to voluntary services to give people a journey out. The model of care will consider the linkage to current voluntary services and the opportunities to develop other voluntary services, but I would indicate that some of the debate around this particular issue has suggested that no action should be taken in relation to mandatory assessment, treatment or detention until all demand for voluntary assessment, treatment and detention has been satiated. We believe that mandatory assessment, treatment and detention is an appropriate tool in a range of tools, voluntary and not voluntary.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What consideration has been given by the working group to the continuation of schooling for children engaged in this program? I note that DECD is involved in the working group.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member is quite correct in highlighting the participation of the Department for Education, and issues such as schooling will be considered.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The question was: has it been considered?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that it has.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister guarantee that any child engaged in this mandatory program will continue with their schooling while they are in whatever treatment orders they are mandatorily put under?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just to clarify: education 'is' being considered rather than 'has'—'has' would be too past tense. In terms of the role of schooling in the model of care, that will be clear once the interagency working group has completed its work and the draft has been released.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How is consideration that schooling will not be continued in any way compliant with our United Nations obligations?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I made it very clear in my opening remarks, as reflected in other statutes of this parliament, that the government will comply with its international human rights obligations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Will children already detained in training centres be covered by these orders?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is there any modelling to suggest how many children that might apply to? Will they be detained in the training centres that they are currently detained in, or will they be detained in other facilities for mandatory detention?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that this issue goes directly to the issues raised by the amendments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros. The government, through the bill and through the amendments, will not allow somebody to be detained in a youth training facility for the purpose of mandatory assessment or treatment. They would need to have already been detained under the youth justice laws, but if they are already detained then a mandatory assessment or treatment order can be made in relation to that young person.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer, and that was going to be my next question but it was not in fact the question that was asked of him. For people who are already detained in training centres, is there a possibility under the government's bill that they will be moved out of training centres under a mandatory detention order under this bill and housed in some other sort of facility?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, that is not our expectation. If somebody has been subject to youth justice laws and detained accordingly they will continue to be legally detained under youth justice laws, but while they are in custody they may well be also subject to orders under this act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of clarity, I note the minister has used some very specific wording and said that is not his expectation; can he place it on the record that he is ruling out that being a possibility?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated last year, the government has committed to proclaiming this legislation in two stages. The first stage would only apply to people who were already lawfully detained in a youth training centre and orders could be made in relation to them. In the second stage of the proclamation of this legislation, once passed, a person who became subject to a treatment under this act would not be moved out of the youth training centre on the imposition of an order under this act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for giving an unequivocal answer to that. Is there any advice, no matter how indicative it is, of a cost analysis of how much it will cost to implement this bill, and has there been any modelling done or any estimates from other jurisdictions about the cost per child to implement this regime?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There has been some work done on costs in relation to stage 1, but there has not been work done on stage 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again just to clarify: is the minister saying that there has been work done on the cost of detaining someone who is already in a training centre to continue to be in a training centre, but there has not been any work whatsoever done about the cost of setting up a scheme for the mandatory detention of people who were not in training centres already? Is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not saying that there has been no work done. I am sure the interagency working group is discussing a lot of issues. But just to clarify: I do not know whether this was what the honourable member was intending, but it is not my expectation that the, if you like, custodial costs of a young person will transfer from the Department of Human Services to Health, as the health agency. I would only anticipate that the additional costs of the scheme and the delivery of assessment and treatment under this act would fall on the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer that there has been work done on the first part of this scheme. Given that that work has been done, can the minister please inform the chamber what the estimate cost per young person is for those already in training centres, not the custodial costs but the costs for delivering these treatment orders?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering that we are going to come back to this issue in later committees, I will undertake to take that on notice and advise the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for that. Will the minister also take on notice and bring back, after having made inquiries, whether there has been any work done on stage 2, that is, those who will be mandatorily detained but not in training centres, and the estimated cost range of detaining young people involuntarily in those facilities, including any costs of new facilities that will need to be built?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to include that in the advice I bring back.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Finally on the costings, will the minister also take on notice and bring back whether it has been considered, on what has been represented to us, that the cost of involuntary treatment substantially exceeds that of voluntary treatment, and if that is factored into the models that he is going to bring back the costs of?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think on that particular question I will not be able to bring back an answer because it completely depends on the model of care. Some of the submissions that have been put in relation to the bill have imagined regimes that are much more complex and expensive than I believe will be established. There is a whole range of possible models. We have mentioned that in some of our earlier debate. I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros referred to different models in Sweden and the like. The cost of an involuntary scheme and the relative cost to a voluntary scheme is completely dependent on the model of care.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just while we are on the issue of costs, would the minister also be able to confirm at a later point if any aspects of the bill that we are debating are going to be subject to or reliant on commonwealth funding and have there been any commitments for commonwealth funding or, indeed, any discussions with the commonwealth in relation to additional funding to ensure that adequate funding is available?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Certainly there has been no commitment by the commonwealth to fund the implementation of the bill, but the state government does actively seek commonwealth government funding for different drug and alcohol programs.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I confirm then for the record that when seeking that funding we will not be seeking funding that has been set aside by the commonwealth for drug and rehab services as a result of the Ice Taskforce and the $40 million that was secured for drug and alcohol rehab services? What I want to ensure is that that money has been earmarked for voluntary services and that we are not going to be dipping into those funds for this purpose.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I reiterate that the state government is not intending to seek any commonwealth funding to fund the implementation of this model. To answer the honourable member's direct question, that includes the $40 million that was provided in relation to ice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The AMA has been highly concerned that these detention orders may be placing young people with similar drug problems in the same space which, it is represented, is known can further exacerbate addiction issues. What is the government's response to these concerns?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I look forward to the AMA's further consideration of the model of care. I am sure that their consideration will consider those issues, if they arise.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The minister will be happy to know that I have almost exhausted my questions. We did touch on this previously, but I am wondering—given that there have been two meetings and that there is a working group now that is discussing these issues—about comorbidity. What about trauma-informed practice, particularly where somebody is self-medicating? Finally, what about alcohol and cigarettes and prescription drugs that are being taken without a prescription? Will all those factors be considered in the model of care?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. I would remind the council that the bill would only engage a person who is drug dependent on a controlled substance. The honourable member raises an important point, because it is envisaged that because of the high and complex needs of those likely to be subject to youth treatment orders there will need to be assessment of comorbidity, such as trauma or underlying medical and health issues, that may contribute to the young person's drug use.

That is one of the reasons why the government has made explicit that assessments have to be made by a medical practitioner. It is envisaged that, because of the high and complex needs, assessments and treatment decisions will be led by a specialist clinician with a high level of clinical expertise in the fields of psychiatry and addiction medicine, including adolescent health, and that assessment and treatment planning will address any trauma or underlying medical and health issues that may contribute to the young person's drug use.

I think this may well, therefore, relate to the discussion we are having in relation to whether or not cannabis should be included. It is not uncommon for a person to be using more than one substance, and so whilst a substance may not be the drug dependency that engages this act, it may well be considered as part of the plan.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 2, lines 8 and 9 [clause 2(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment removes the government's attempt, as they have in a number of bills, to skirt around the usual two-year enactment period for the legislation under the Acts Interpretation Act, that if it has not been assented to it automatically comes into force two years after it has passed. We have seen this amendment appear numerous times over the last 14 months. There seems to be no good reason for it in this bill or, in fact, in the other bills that this amendment has been removed from.

If the government is looking to do what they say they are going to do then there is no problem with this bill coming into force in two years' time. It is only if they are looking to not do what they say they are going to do and get on with the job of implementing the model of care that there would be any reason to go past that two-year date.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It has not been uncommon for governments in the past to have provisions such as this. The government considers that the clause should apply in this bill because it recognises that effective implementation of this legislative reform will require close consultation and collaboration with a range of key health, justice, child protection and non-government service providers and stakeholders.

We want the interagency working group to have time to do its task and further consultation with the community and stakeholders. This will allow the government an opportunity to commence the legislation in two phases: in the first instance applying assessment and treatment orders to young people subject to detention and, in the latter phase, extending to young people with substance dependency problems more generally.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think this parliament would be more than willing to consider in a couple of years' time, if there were hold-ups or unforeseen circumstances that meant the legislation could not be enacted, a request for further time to do that, but we see no reason why the usual provision of it automatically coming into force in two years should not apply in this case. It does provide an incentive for the government to actually get on with doing the job and doing what they say they are going to do. Rather than having just two task force meetings since December last year, it gives an incentive for the government to get on with the task.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am happy to indicate for the record that we will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition's amendment, but we ask the government why they felt it necessary to have this in the commencement provisions?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have already indicated that. Two years can be arbitrary and we wanted to allow an opportunity for not only the work of the interagency working group but also consultation and implementation. However, I see that the council is attracted to the opposition amendment and I accept that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 3 to 6 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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