|
Report back on hearings held in Parliament on 13 & 14 May 2008 on... The Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Bill
1. Attendance
The hearings were poorly attended. Owing to the small amount of submissions, it took only one and a half days (out of four days set aside) to hear the submissions. Only 11 submissions were heard.
2. Submissions
It is possible that there were more submissions sent in for the Portfolio Committee to consider because we are aware of at least two submissions that were not even received. This was not because they were not sent, but because they were not received by the committee because the committee assistant, Phumla Nymaza was "on holiday".
3. Knowledge of substance abuse
The committee whilst well educated, displayed a lack of knowledge on the subject. They seemed to be unaware of the severity of the issue of substance abuse in S.A. The committee also seemed unaware of the fact that poor people in South Africa could not receive treatment. They seemed to think that if a poor person who needed treatment wanted it, it was available. When it was explained that this was not the case, the committee seemed puzzled.
4. Language and definitions
An impressive submission by Sarah Fisher of SMART was presented. It cited the importance of defining the words & terms correctly first before settling on a final bill.
It is important that one "language" is spoken in the industry as many people / treatment centres have developed their own terms and language.
For instance, what do the following words or terms mean?
Inpatient, Outpatient, Treatment, Recovery, Programme, Primary Care, Secondary Care, Clinic, Substance Abuse, Addiction etc.
5. Redefining Addiction / Substance Abuse
The issue of whether or not certain behaviours should be considered as addictions was brought up. The view of the AAC was that compulsive behaviour such as sex, gambling, pornography should be considered by the Committee in determining the contents of the bill. There was strong resistance to this as the bill only considers substance abuse.
There are two schools of thought on this issue. One says they are addictions, the other says that they are not. Whilst there is a disagreement on the issue, they will not be up for consideration in the bill.
Whilst we understand the importance of not including these behaviours in the bill, we are concerned about the future repercussions of not doing so. Currently only substance abuse treatment centres treat these compulsive behaviours. If the bill excludes them and redefines what addiction is, will it make allowances for public funds to be made available for these issues to be addressed properly?
6. One treatment standard
There were numerous calls for the Committee to establish a "one standard for all". In other words, private clinics as well as government facilities, non-profit organisations and anyone providing "treatment" to substance abusers / addicts should be compelled to provide the same programme. Whilst this may be unconstitutional, the main objective seemed to be for the raising of treatment programme standards across the board.
7. Industry educational standards, qualifications and accreditation
It was proposed that the committee consider stipulating the minimum educational standards required for anyone wanting to work with substance abusers. It was also mentioned that anyone who worked with substance abusers should employ only qualified and accredited staff. Accreditation standards were also discussed and there were calls for the Department to provide clear accreditation procedures.
8. Provision for children
There were calls for the bill to consider the rights of children who had substance abuse problems as there were no facilities that catered for them that were affordable.
9. Missing reports from the Department of Social Development
Last year the Department sent an investigative team to all the centres in the country in order to compile a report which was also intended to be used for consideration by the Committee on the new bill. It was however never submitted. Advocate TM Masutha, the Chairperson of the committee expressed his concern that public funds had been used to generate this report and that the exercise would be wasted if the committee did not see it. He did commit to the committee seeing the report before any final decisions were made on the bill.
10. The term "Addict" derogatory
There were strong calls for the term "addict" not to be used in the hearings as it was being used frequently to describe someone misusing drugs. Many people felt that the term is derogatory and should not be used as it causes harm and stigmatizes someone already struggling to deal with the consequences of negative public perception.
11. Excellent submissions
There were outstanding submissions by Sarah Fisher of SMART (Substance Misuse Advocacy Research and Training) on the wording of the bill, as well as from Paula Akugizibwe of ARASA (Aids & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa) on amongst other things, needle & syringe exchange programmes. Click on the links to see / download their submissions. Click here to see the AAC submission.
12. The City of Cape Town implements a new outpatient programme
The City of Cape Town has implemented a new outpatient programme which is co sponsored by the Vodacom Foundation. Warren Burnhams, the programme director recently visited the Matrix Institute in the U.S.A. for training on The Matrix Model for Treatment. The Treatment programme is being offered at a clinic in Mitchells Plein Cape Town. Contact the Deputy Mayor’s Office on (021) 400-1311 or email drugs@capetown.gov.za for more information.
13. Conclusion
I was very disappointed by the amount of submissions presented to the committee although the quality of some presented was excellent. The committee showed its ignorance on programmes that have been implemented internationally when it criticized ARASA’s recommendation for needle and syringe exchange programmes. I felt that although the committee members may be well educated politicians, the committee should have included well educated people on the subject of substance abuse. I felt that it was unacceptable that a national report which was compiled in 2007 by the Department of Social Development had not been presented to the committee. However I was pleased to hear that the Chairman of the committee also found this unacceptable. On the whole, the committee did seem to be open for correction.
For more information on this publication, contact the writer:
A.A.C. Chairman, Mr. Warren Whitfield, at Tel: 079-066-3882 or warren@aacorg.co.za |
|
Choose to |
|
Remember |
|
To contact us: |
|
Phone: 079-066-3382 Fax: 086 646 7953 E-mail: info@aacorg.co.za
|