 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
In committee.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am looking at proposed new section 38, which relates to undertakings. It does not in any way spell out the involvement of a client, or whatever they are called, in this process. Anybody who has been involved in the drug area knows that no one treatment works for everybody and that, in fact, a treatment that works for one person at one time might not work at another time. If they have an addiction, it is a question of what stage they are at in their addiction. The way proposed new section 38 reads at the moment, it suggests that a single person, the assessor, makes the decision. The client may believe in the process very strongly and may even be sympathetic about trying to do something about their problem, but they may also believe that the solution that is offered will not work.
For instance, it might be proposed that they be sent off for a methadone treatment program, but they might have done it before, they hated it and it did not work for them. Having gone into this process, they have no choice. Why is there no spelling out of the role that the client plays in this process, other than signing on and basically agreeing to do what they are told? I am not saying that ultimately they should not be told what to do, but there seems to be no spelling out of the role of the client. If we are seriously trying to treat such people, particularly those with an addiction, and if the client is not involved in the decision making, it will be a failure. Although people are put in a position where they know best, they may be wrong but, with the absolute power they have got in this process, I wonder why no consideration was given to permit a person, having been prescribed a certain treatment, to appeal it so it might be reviewed elsewhere in the structures of assessment.
The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Was the Hon. Mike Elliott alluding to an audit of the assessment procedures?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am talking about a particular individual who has undertaken assessment. One would expect that that would involve a great deal of conversation but, at the end of the day, the person in charge of the assessment will say what that person will do. It is possible that the person will believe quite honestly that it will be totally inappropriate and will not work. If they believe that, it almost certainly will not.
I know that the government does not want to create a situation where these people can refuse everything, but there must be some process that guarantees that the person is engaged in the process and that, if a person believes that a mistake is being made, there is some way of addressing it. Rather, as this seems to be, they are sent for treatment, perhaps methadone, and although it did not work last time they are being sent off to do it. I do not think that flexibility or responsiveness to the needs of the client is built into this measure in the way it should be. It might be intended to do it administratively but in the bill it is not there.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: In the present act, there is already provision for an assessment panel to require the person alleged to have committed the offence to enter into a written undertaking relating to the treatment that the person will undertake, participation by the person in a program of an educative, preventative or rehabilitative nature, and any other matters that will in the opinion of the assessment panel assist that person to overcome any personal problems that may tend to lead or may have led to the misuse of drugs. That is in almost identical terms to proposed section 38.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: I understand that, but I think that the question is still applicable.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Can the Attorney-General say how the treatment services will be upgraded in South Australia? There is no doubt that the two major criticisms up until now have related to the adequacy of the assessment services, in particular the resourcing of the assessment services, and the fact that there were no places to which to refer them. I know there has been some upgrade, but how much expansion will there be of rehabilitation treatment services?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: An additional $3 million a year will be available.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Is that for treatment and rehabilitation services?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I have not yet finished. Of that, it is expected that about $2 million in additional money per year will be spent on new treatment services across the state.
