Page 2751 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: Of course, what I have also said is that an open slather approach to methadone has been taken by Mr Moore, with the support, it seems, of the Liberals. The Government's proposal to expand methadone treatment services into health centres is by far the most effective option for meeting the increased demands for methadone treatment. This proposal will not only improve access to treatment but also ensure that all people seeking methadone treatment receive the high-quality services they have a right to.
The methadone program has expanded from 86 places in August 1991 to 104 places in October 1992, and the phased expansion into three health centres will provide for 350 places by 1 July 1993. This expansion program will incorporate cost saving initiatives which will enable further expansion to another health centre when the need arises. Privatisation of services will not ensure that a high standard of treatment is delivered to all clients, nor will it achieve even the most basic objective of the service of increased access at affordable prices.
Mr Moore: Let the people at the receiving end choose. If they do not like the low standard, then they do not have to take it.
MR BERRY: You might want to turn the ACT into a social laboratory, Mr Moore, but we do not. The select committee proposes that private sector services should be allowed to provide methadone without any regulatory mechanisms in place which would ensure that these services also had the expertise and the resources to provide ongoing clinical and personal support to clients. There is no in-depth thinking evident in the report about how quality standards can be maintained and monitored over a period of time.
The committee's report is fundamentally flawed because it does not give consideration to the national guidelines for methadone programs. Where was that mentioned? These guidelines were developed by experts drawn from all over Australia under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, which Mr Humphries sat on. The thrust of the committee's recommendations flouts these guidelines by proposing a broader spread of distribution points while appearing to have no regard for the paramount underlying premise of the guidelines, which is the safety and care of the client.
Routine inspections of handling, storage and documentation procedures for the administration of methadone are not an adequate response to the need to monitor quality of standards. There is no serious consideration given in the report to how to ensure that general practitioners are competent to prescribe methadone.
Mr De Domenico: Because they have doctors' degrees.
MR BERRY: They do not have those, Tony. Mention is made of the importance of training programs, but this is not included as a requirement in the recommendations. The methadone treatment program outlined in the report assumes a continuum of care from the public sector to the private sector. In reality, we will have a vast array of services with the potential to treat clients at very different stages of treatment and no capacity to attend to the overall clinical management needs of these people. That is what I mean by open slather.
Members interjected.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .