Page 4227 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On the issue of diversion of methadone, it is not only the case, as Mr Hanson suggests, that a detainee may seek to hold the methadone in their mouth. In fact, it can go much further than that. Detainees are known to regurgitate the substances that they take from their stomach, particularly if they have not had any other food or water in the period following taking the substance. It shows the lengths to which detainees will sometimes go and the challenges this presents in terms of management of these matters. But that appears to be a matter that Mr Hanson is not familiar with or has not even contemplated.
Following this consumption of diverted methadone, the detainee’s health deteriorated. He was attended to by ambulance staff and the detainee was later transferred for treatment and observation. Having reviewed this incident, as is normal, Corrective Services and the Health Directorate made changes to the medication procedures, as you would expect.
The first was to require that detainees in the CSU must wait 30 minutes rather than 20 minutes after being administered medication, including methadone, before being returned to their cell. This goal is to further reduce the chance of the detainee regurgitating the methadone and diverting it for later use. This change has already been implemented. The second change is to introduce a different methadone formula, which is less syrupy than the one currently being used. As a result, this will further reduce the chance of the detainee regurgitating the methadone and diverting it for later use. These are sensible responses to the circumstances of these incidents and they are responses that are normal management responses to issues as they arise.
Also we are observing that there have been over 40,000 occasions of the administration of methadone to prisoners at the AMC since the prison started operation—40,000! There have been three adverse incidents in relation to methadone administration. It is a context, of course, that Mr Hanson is not interested in taking on board because it ruins the false perception that he seeks to create about how these types of health services are administered at the AMC.
Let me turn to the issue of notification requirements in regard to all detainees. For Indigenous detainees, this includes notification of the AMC’s Indigenous liaison officer. Firstly, it is important to note that this is not a requirement of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is a response to an area of AMC policy and procedure which Corrective Services continues to focus on.
There has been a suggestion that the detainee who was diverting the methadone was doing so for the purposes of self-harm. Mr Hanson has included this reference in his motion. This is not something that can be verified from the information currently before us.
I think we have to be clear about the steps that the government has taken. I have already addressed the issue of notification of the ILO, which is in the AMC procedures and which the government ensured occurred within 24 hours of the incident taking place. I can also indicate that steps have been taken to address the issue of the diversion of methadone and the subsequent accidental overdose. These
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video