Page 2752 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 39. This debate will go for an extremely long period of time. I certainly hope that what the Opposition is attempting to do is not a precursor of what we will need to put up with over the next three-and-a-half hours of debate.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am aware of standing order 39, Mr Lamont. Let that be of guidance to all members.
MR BERRY: Without proper quality controls, this could lead to situations of overdosing, inappropriate referrals, inappropriate prescribing and increased incidence of relapse from clients who have fallen through the net of services.
Secondly, a major disadvantage of the select committee's proposal for privatisation of services is the lack of consideration given to social planning. The report is flawed. Without the development of proper planning controls which take into account the location of existing services and residential requirements, service provision will be ad hoc and the needs of clients and the local community will suffer. How can we ensure that services will be optimally located to cater for client and community needs?
The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, comprising Ministers from all States and Territories, played a key role in setting national guidelines for methadone treatment programs throughout Australia. These guidelines were first endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers Conference in 1985 and have undergone periodic review since that time. They reflect the link between methadone treatment as an intervention process which ensures client safety and welfare and the public health of the community, and also spell out the requirement for proper planning decisions which involve community consultation as being crucial for equitable service delivery. The select committee has given little attention to these issues.
It cannot be denied that the privatisation of methadone services will, by its very nature, be a commercial venture. Access to private sector services will be determined by the capacity of clients to pay for treatment at rates set by individual practitioners, pharmacies and clinics. Should people seeking methadone treatment have to rely on the goodwill of the private sector not to exploit them? These issues have not been addressed in the report. In reality, we would have a situation of competition between private sector services, and clients would be forced to pay more for the privilege of a better service. This system will clearly discriminate against certain client groups who cannot afford to pay a higher price for their methadone treatment. These clients will effectively not have the opportunity to make choices about their treatment. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very clear that for these reasons the private system of methadone distribution proposed by the select committee will not increase access and maximise choices for all people seeking methadone. High-quality methadone treatment will become an exclusive option for the moneyed few.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to address some of the criticisms made by the select committee of operational policies in the ACT methadone program. These are a cause of serious concern to the Government. This Government believes that the select committee needs to examine some of its recommendations more carefully in the light of the facts about methadone as a form of treatment. These are the facts: Policies on urinalysis and takeaway dosing are not intended as punitive or control measures, as the select committee report suggests.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .