Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
Legislative
Council Wednesday 6 December 2006
The Hon. R.D. LAWSON:
I seek leave to make a brief
explanation before asking the Minister for Mental Health and Substance
Abuse a
question about controlled substances.
Leave granted.
The Hon. R.D. LAWSON:
In September 2002, Premier Mike Rann entered into a compact with the
late Ivy
Skoronski, in which the Premier promised `tougher new penalties of up
to 25
years gaol for makers of precursors that go towards the manufacture of
amphetamine-style drugs. Those who use children to sell drugs could
face
penalties of up to life imprisonment.' Subsequently, in September 2005,
the
government finally introduced the Controlled Substances (Serious Drug
Offences)
Amendment Bill amidst much fanfare, including statements widely
reported by the
Attorney-General that there was to be an overhaul
of South Australia's drug
laws, and I quote as follows: The
Rann government is set to shake up South Australia's drug world with
the
introduction of proposed laws targeting trafficking, cultivation and
manufacture
of drugs, as well as the possession of precursor drugs and drug labs. That
legislation was duly
passed and assented to on 1 December 2005,
but it has not yet come into
operation. This government has not proclaimed the act to come into
operation.
What the Premier and the
Attorney-General failed to indicate in their statements about this
legislation
was that, in fact, its true genesis was a report in October 1998 of the
Model
Criminal Officers Code Committee and the fact that other states were
introducing similar legislation. Indeed, the commonwealth has
introduced the
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug
Offences and Other Measures)
Act. That act is already in operation. Victoria has enacted similar
legislation, which is in operation; indeed, it came into operation in
2004. The
comparable Tasmanian legislation came into operation in December last
year, and
similar legislation has already come into force in the
Australian Capital
Territory. An article by Nick Henderson in The Advertiser
quoted the
government as indicating that its excuse for failing to bring this
legislation
into operation was the fact that a national drug schedule was still
awaited. My
questions to the minister are:
1. What is the reason
for the government's failure to meet its own rhetoric and introduce
these
measures, which were passed over a year ago by this parliament?
2. When will the
legislation be introduced?
3. What resources is the
government putting into the enforcement of this legislation?
The Hon. G.E. GAGO
(Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse): I thank the
member for
his important question and his very long explanation. We recognise that
drugs,
particularly amphetamines, can cause serious health problems, including
a range
of problems such as psychosis and aggression and the like, not to
mention the
health problems associated with the transmission of blood-borne
diseases such
as hepatitis C and HIV and the significant social problems caused by
those
diseases.
The Controlled Substances
Act was amended in December 2005 to make the selling or making of a
controlled
precursor with the intent of using it or supplying it to another person
for the
manufacture of a controlled drug a serious criminal offence. This
amendment
will not be brought into operation until regulations are amended to
specify the
quantities of the drug that constitute a specific offence. Penalties
and quantities
will differ, ranging from commercial trafficking through to individual
sales,
and a national working group, chaired by the Executive Director of
DASSA, is
currently reviewing recommendations for these quantities. Those
recommendations
will then be considered by states and territories. I believe that
answers the
questions that were asked.
The Hon. R.D. LAWSON:
Sir, I have a supplementary
question arising out of the failure to answer.
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT:
Order! The Hon. Mr Lawson has a supplementary question.
The Hon. R.D. LAWSON:
When is it expected that the report of this group will be made
available, and
when will the regulations be brought into force in South Australia?
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
I am happy to take those questions on notice and bring back a response.
The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS:
I have a supplementary question. Given that the minister is right about
the
harm caused by drugs, why is there a total lack of urgency with this?
Is the
government not serious about this at all?
The PRESIDENT:
There will be no opinion or statement.
The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I
have a supplementary
question. Given that the sections not in operation also refer to drugs
of
dependence in addition to a schedule, why has the government not
proclaimed
those sections? The law could still be enforced, given that what is a
drug of
dependence is accepted through the courts.
The PRESIDENT:
There will be no statement; just a question.
The Hon. NICK XENOPHON:
Would you like me to ask it again?
The PRESIDENT: It
is easy enough to frame it as a question rather than as a lengthy
statement.
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a response. [...]
The Hon. A.M. BRESSINGTON:
I seek leave to make a brief
explanation before asking the Minister for Mental Health and Substance
Abuse
questions about South Australia's input into
Swedish drug policy.
Leave granted.
The Hon. A.M. BRESSINGTON:
Yesterday, I asked the minister a series of questions regarding
misleading
information given by her office to a constituent
about Sweden's drug policy.
In particular, my constituents tells me that she was informed by the
minister's
office—this was confirmed by a staff
member of the minister—that Sweden was
going back to a harm minimisation approach. I asked the minister to
confirm
whether she was aware that her advisers were giving misleading
information and
what steps would be taken to correct that. In her answer the minister
stated
that Swedish drug policy is evolving. She said:
. . . the
national coordinator of the Swedish drug policy has, in fact,
approached drug
and alcohol services here in South Australia seeking advice about the
approach
that this state has taken in managing our methadone
program—in particular, in
relation to how they successfully decrease a wide range of problems
associated
with IV drug use, such as hepatitis C spread and HIV. I
sent my colleague in Sweden
a word-for-word account of the answer the minister gave yesterday in
relation
to the issue. Today I received a response, and I will read it verbatim.
Mr
Peterson states: I
read out the passage highlighted by you in your email (to the National
Drug
Policy Coordinator) and I also translated it into Swedish to make sure
there
would be no misunderstanding. Bjorn
Fries, who is the Swedish National Drug Policy
Coordinator says `The statement
is a bluff. I have never approached any drug and alcohol services in
South
Australia on any issue and I have no intention to do so. Further,
I note that the
minister in answer to a supplementary question yesterday stated that
her source
of information about Sweden approaching South Australia for advice was
the
Chief Executive of the Drug & Alcohol Services,
Mr Keith Evans. My
questions are:
1. Does the minister
acknowledge that the information she provided yesterday was incorrect
and
misleading; that the comments of Mr Fries cast serious doubts
on her
answer to the council yesterday; and that the information given to a
constituent was in fact not accurate?
2. Given the comments of
Sweden's national drug policy coordinator, which are fundamentally at
odds with
the minister's answer and, in turn, with the advice she stated she
received
from Mr Keith Evans, will she provide to the council all
correspondence
and documents between Mr Keith Evans, Mr Bjorn Fries
and any Swedish
government agency dealing with drug policy, and will she do so as a
matter of
urgency, given the serious inconsistencies involved in this matter?
3. Will the minister
explain what steps she takes to confirm information and advice given to
her by
her advisers and, given this particular situation, will she endeavour
to
research and confirm further any future claims made by her advisers
regarding
international drug policy?
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT:
Order!
The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister
for Mental Health and Substance Abuse):
I thank the honourable member for her important
questions. I am happy to follow up and provide the details of the
advice that
was given to our officers from the Drug & Alcohol Services of
South
Australia. I am happy to provide that.
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT:
Order!
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
In relation to the information about Swedish drug policy, I can further
add
that I have been informed that Swedish drug policy is viewed as part of
a
welfare and social policy and that drug treatment is
administered through
local government. That is the advice that I have received. Further, the
information I have is that Swedish drug policy is evolving with an
emphasis on
increasing the availability of harm reduction programs and a wider
range of
treatment options on an increasingly voluntary basis.
Pharmocotherapy programs
such as methadone, in conjunction with detoxification and
rehabilitation
services, are also becoming more available. I am also provided with
advice
which states that on 1 July 2006 a new law took effect in
Sweden that
permits regional health authorities to run needle exchange programs
provided
they are endorsed by the local
community—and the authority describes
how it
will provide detoxification and treatment programs. So these are
examples—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
Members fail to make the connection that these are in fact methods, if
you
like, that we would categorise as harm minimisation, that is, needle
exchange
programs and methadone programs. Further advice I have is that Sweden's
policy
of compulsory or coerced treatment is often promoted, but the report I
referred
to identifies a reduction in the proportion of people entering
treatment under
coercion. So, this is going to the question of the evolving of the
Swedish
model. As I said, there has been a reduction in the proportion of
people
entering treatment under coercion, at least in part because of
budgetary constraints.
Again, I am informed that as at 1 November 2005 only
6 per cent of
people in residential treatment were in coercive care.
This shift emphasises
that a compulsory treatment care model is expensive, and I understand
that
problems have been identified in relation to
that problems that impede the
capacity to respond to requests for voluntary entry,
maintaining a balance
between residential and outpatient treatment, and coercion such as
through the
drug courts. Obviously we believe that voluntary entry allows more
people to be
treated within a defined level of resource. So, that is further
information in
relation to the way that I understand the Swedish model has evolved,
and I am
happy to provide details about the specific sources of that
information and
bring that back to the parliament when I have it available.
The Hon. A.M. BRESSINGTON:
I have a supplementary
question. Is the minister aware that Sweden, in 1966, was the first
country to
introduce a methadone maintenance program in Europe and that that
methadone
maintenance program has run
The PRESIDENT:
Order! There will be no statement made. Just ask the question.
The Hon. A.M. BRESSINGTON:
Well, is the minister aware that Sweden was the first country in Europe
to
introduce a methadone maintenance
program and it has nothing to do with
South
Australia?
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
I raised the issue of
methadone programs and the Swedish model yesterday so, obviously, I was
aware.
The member failed to listen to my answer yesterday.
The Hon. A.M. BRESSINGTON:
Is the minister also aware
that Sweden has had needle and syringe programs in place for the past
18 years again, nothing to do
with South Australia?
The PRESIDENT: I
do not see how that derives from the original answer. [later]
The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister
for Mental Health and Substance Abuse):
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.
The Hon. G.E. GAGO:
Yesterday I stated that the Swedish national coordinator for drug
policy had
asked Drug and Alcohol Services SA for advice about the
approach this
state has taken in managing our methadone program. I need to correct
the record
and state that I am advised that it was the deputy national coordinator
for
drug policy in Sweden, Ms Christa Oguz, who asked Associate
Professor
Robert Ali from Drug and Alcohol Services SA for information
regarding
our clinical approaches to methadone and buprenorphine and our drug
prevention
strategy. I am advised that this occurred in Sweden when Associate
Professor
Ali was visiting as the chair of the National Expert Advisory
Committee on
Illicit Drugs.
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT:
Order!
Contact us: admin@sos-sa.org.au
Small wonder that this media realase of 27th December was issued:
Dear Santa,
Thank you for your early gift this year of my election to the
Legislative Council of S.A. as a drug reform campaigner. I
can't wait for the coming New Year to unfold!
I am now writing to get in early with my request for next year's gift
and I hope you can manage it.
I don't mean to be too unreasonable or demanding, but I would really
love it if you could give our elected members a conscience so they will
not mislead Parliament and the public
of South Australia, like (Hon) Gail Gago, Minister
for Mental Health and Substance Abuse did when she
suggested Sweden was going back to a "harm minimisation" drug policy
("Drug Policy", Hansard 5th and 6th December, 2006) and even more so
that Sweden would be seeking any advice or guidance at all from South
Australia, given our track record.
Of course, we now know that no contact was made by the Swedish National
Drug Policy Co-Ordinator, Mr Bjorn Fries to contact the Chief Executive
of Drug and Alcohol Services, Mr Keith Evans, to discuss South
Australia's "harm minimisation" strategy at all, much less with the
view to adopting what we all know is not working. He stated
in
response "I have never consulted with drug and alcohol services of S.A.
on any issue and I never intend to do so".
Santa, do you suppose it would also be a big ask that our legislative
draftsmen use an ounce of logic and common-
sense when creating
laws by which we must all abide?
For example, why do our legal experts insist on proposing ludicrous
laws like Amendment No 1 [Police - 1], Clause 4, page 2, after line 21,
(1a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Drink Spiking) Amendment Bill
2006,
which would make it an offence only to be in possession of drugs used
to spike drinks between the hours of 9pm and 5 am, but not at other
times.
I am delighted that our law makers don't want our kids' drinks spiked
with asthma puffers or gastric reflux medications,
but I'll take my chances if, instead, we can get our addicted youth
into rehabilitation
programs, effective drug education into our schools and those who grow,
manufacture and distribute drugs off the street and behind bars.
That's all,
Love to you and Mrs Claus
Ann Bressington
RECOVERED ADDICTS SAY: "THE ONLY WAY TO RECOVER FROM DRUGS IS TO STOP
USING THEM."
For further information contact Ann Bressington -
0448 887 277