Brisbane AOD Agency Forum report

Brisbane AOD Agency Forum report

Background

The Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) has determined it will hold an alcohol and other drug (AOD) agency forum in conjunction with its meetings in each State and Territory. Through these forums, the ANCD is able to ensure that the views of non-government, community-based organisations that deal with AOD issues are considered as part of drug policy advice.

The ANCD produces a report from each forum which aims to provide a brief description of the issues raised by forum participants. These reports are available on the ANCD’s internet site to enable forum participants and interested others to access the issues that were discussed. The ANCD also provides a copy of each report to the Premier or Chief Minister, as well as the Minister responsible for AOD issues in each jurisdiction, to ensure that the Government is aware of the issues raised.

It should also be noted that the issues raised at the forums are not necessarily areas that the ANCD agrees with or is able to address. They do however provide ANCD members with an important insight into community concerns and perceptions about specific AOD issues. In addition, the ANCD believes that it has an obligation to participants to report the issues and concerns raised in an unfettered manner.

Brisbane 2003

Approximately 50 people from Brisbane and the surrounding area participated in the ANCD’s AOD agency forum, which was held at the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Brisbane on 18 September 2003. The forum participants included representatives from a range non-government organisations, as well as State & Federal government departments.

Major Watters officially welcomed participants to the forum, explained its purpose, and then introduced the Executive Officer of the ANCD, Mr Gino Vumbaca.

Mr Vumbaca gave a presentation that:

Explained the role of the ANCD and its position within the National Drug Strategic Framework;
Highlighted some of the projects the ANCD has commissioned;
Outlined progress under the Tough on Drugs strategy; and
Provided information about a range of AOD issues.

At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr Vumbaca opened the floor for questions and/or comments about current and emerging AOD issues in Brisbane and the surrounding area. The following issues were raised:

Costs of Measuring Results
The costs associated with evaluation and measuring performance result in agencies sometimes needing to allocate funds towards reporting rather than offering more services. In this way, it is important that funding bodies are aware of the costs involved in collecting the data to meet these reporting requirements. Agencies added that evaluation is highly valued by the sector, particularly as it is important to demonstrate results, however additional funding is often required to collect this data.
University Infrastructure Costs
Universities require significant infrastructure and overhead costs to be included into budgets for their work. These costs can prohibit drug and alcohol agencies purchasing the expertise they require, and efforts are required to facilitate partnerships between universities and alcohol and other drug agencies to conduct research, evaluations and other work.
Dual Diagnosis — Lack of Services
There is a lack of services for dual diagnosis clients who are often excluded from either AOD or mental health services because of their more complex needs. This lack of service provision is unacceptable, particularly given the high rate of co-morbidity within the client groups for both mental health and drug and alcohol clients.
Longitudinal Cohort Studies
Longitudinal studies involving young people are important in order to disentangle the issues regarding drug use and the onset of mental health issues. These studies are quite expensive but are essential if we are to understand these issues.
Children of drug treatment clients
Children of drug treatment clients do not have sufficient support and access to specific services, sometimes leading to mental health and drug use problems of their own later in life.
Methadone Issues
- Dispensing Costs
  Methadone clients are paying fees of up to $5 – $7 per day. This level of expenditure is quite significant if the person is on a welfare payment and public transportation expenses to travel to the pharmacy can exacerbate these costs. Methadone dispensing through public hospitals is done on a district-by-district basis, which contributes to problems of inaccessibility to clients.
- Detainees
  Watch-house detainees can ‘drop-out’ of methadone treatment because private pharmacies are not usually willing to deliver (unless in Brisbane city watch-house).
- Public Reaction
  Methadone use is still very stigmatising and public ‘backlash’ is not uncommon. More needs to be done to improve the understanding of the importance of the program within the community.
Prison Issues
- Searches of the Person In Prisons
  The searching of prisoners, particularly women prisoners, is considered to be a very sensitive issue, particularly given the level of drug use related to a history of sexual abuse for many women. Indeed, strip searches for females can be very traumatising. Figures show that even though a high number of females are strip searched that very few drugs are found. This raises issues of decency and ethics, and stems from the inclusion of strip-searching in the Queensland “drug strategy”.
- Pharmacotherapy Treatment in Queensland Prisons
  There is no methadone or buprenorphine available in Queensland prisons despite there having been discussions for the last six years on the issue.
Rural & Regional Drug Services for Young People
There are very few services specifically for young people in rural and regional areas. In particular, detoxification services for 13 to 18 year olds are required in these areas.
Charity Status
Participants raised the recently released Federal Government discussion paper on the definition of charities. This paper is open for feedback and it is important for non-government organisations in particular to look at the paper and provide comment. The point was made that it is important for a non-government organisation to be able to be involved in advocacy without the risk of having their charity status revoked.
Administrative Barriers
There are a number of clauses in government service agreements that are very restrictive. For example:
- Often, the service agreement with the state government places constraints on organisations in terms of making comments (media and other) about certain issues. These types of conditions on funding are inappropriate.
- There is no national benchmark for funding treatment places. Currently in Queensland the benchmark is $28.80 per day per person, without CPI increases, over the life of the agreement. This is vastly different in other states and is problematic.
- Government requires services to have public liability insurance but provides no extra money to cover the current higher insurance costs.
- Regardless of size of the grant or the agency, the Commonwealth Government requires $5 million worth of public indemnity coverage. The core funding agreement from Queensland Health does not require this cover. Some effort to negotiate a consistent rate is needed.
Philosophy
There seems to be a general move toward a government-centred approach to treating social problems. This move away from an approach that engages the community in responding to their issues is of some concern.

18 September 2003

Top of page

Whilst all care has been made to ensure only authorised material appears on this site, the Australian National Council on Drugs accepts no responsibility for inaccurate or false representations appearing herein.