❓ A parliamentary question regarding funding cuts to Life Education WA, a drug abuse prevention program, is met with a detailed justification by the Minister based on a negative internal review of the program's effectiveness.
AnsweredQoN 1255Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
The Drug and Alcohol Office’s June 2003 “Indicators of Drug Use” statistics indicated that just under half of rural students - 45 per cent - compared with just over a third of metropolitan students - 36 per cent - have used cannabis. Given this, will the minister - (1) immediately reverse his decision to cut funding of $174 000 to Life Education WA - a mobile life skills and drug abuse prevention education resource made available to primary school children in Western Australia; (2) explain why he saw fit to abolish funding for an effective and efficient community-run drug education program for country students; and (3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(1) immediately reverse his decision to cut funding of $174 000 to Life Education WA - a mobile life skills and drug abuse prevention education resource made available to primary school children in Western Australia; (2) explain why he saw fit to abolish funding for an effective and efficient community-run drug education program for country students; and (3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(2) explain why he saw fit to abolish funding for an effective and efficient community-run drug education program for country students; and (3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
. . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices.
The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(1) immediately reverse his decision to cut funding of $174 000 to Life Education WA - a mobile life skills and drug abuse prevention education resource made available to primary school children in Western Australia; (2) explain why he saw fit to abolish funding for an effective and efficient community-run drug education program for country students; and (3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(2) explain why he saw fit to abolish funding for an effective and efficient community-run drug education program for country students; and (3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(3) acknowledge that Rotary International has been delivering this highly successful and popular program at a significantly lower cost than could ever be provided by Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for Wagin for the question and also some notice of it. In March of this year, the Drug and Alcohol Office conducted an evaluation or a review of the Life Education program and its implementation in Western Australia. Although this is hard hitting, members of this House need to hear what that review found back in March of this year. I will read a few extracts from the review report. I will start with the most significant conclusion made under the heading “Negative Effect on the Quality of School Drug Education”, which states - Probably the most often and seriously viewed risk mentioned by those participating in the review was the risk of schools and classroom teachers relying on the Life Education program as the sole drug education activity. Some stakeholders felt that the program offers an ‘easy solution’ for schools that already place a low priority on drug education. Its convenience may discourage more long-term comprehensive school drug education program development and implementation within schools. There is documented evidence that effective programs need a minimum of 40 hours for more than just knowledge change. The report went on in other areas to state - There is no evidence that the Life Education program can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards drug use.. . . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit. This is highly critical, but I thought it was important that members know why we made the decision we did. It further states - The Program has limited potential to address the specific needs, values and behaviours of the school community and individual students. . . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices. Finally, the report states - The Life Education program does not provide the comprehensive teacher professional development required for successful ongoing drug education in the classroom. That evaluation was done some six months ago. Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
. . . There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
There is no evidence that Life Education reduces drug use by students. . . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . . . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . this review indicated that many schools do not implement school drug policies as a result of a Life Education visit.
. . . The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices.
The Life Education program is limited in its ability to influence the school to develop school policies and appropriate practices.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: It is important to realise that your predecessors banned the health programs in schools in the regional areas. You are reading from a report that says that you do not want Rotary to do it, but you also do not want the Department of Health to do it. Who will do it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know about the matters the member has referred to. That question is probably better addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. It is true of our Government - I think it is true of both sides of the House - that we want a comprehensive K to 12 approach to be used to prevent and respond to drug use in the school system. The school education drug program - because I know; I have had a close look at it as a member of a select committee in this Parliament - is held in enormously high regard as being the way in which school drug education programs ought be run and delivered. That has been the view for a very long time. As the Premier said earlier, the real reason is that the Department of Health is made up of a lot of what I term the “one percenters” - 100 000 here, and 174 000 in this particular case. This was a highly criticised program being offered in metropolitan primary schools and some primary schools in the mid west; I think that was the extent of its scope. It was up against a program run in the government schools - the school drug education program - which was much applauded. It was a criticised, funded, privately run show which - Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Just because you are decriminalising cannabis, you are allowing people to grow cannabis in their backyards. You and I have a fundamentally different view about cannabis and its availability to children. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Has the Leader of the Opposition finished? The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: I presume so. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not by a long shot - on that. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has in fact finished in relation to that interjection. It was long and stopped the response from the minister, and that is unacceptable. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I appreciate that back in the 1980s, when Rotary International became involved, inadequate drug education was being provided in our schools. I applaud Rotary for taking the initiative at that time. I can only say that these are the criticisms that the review by the Drug and Alcohol Office of the Government has made of the program. It was recommended six months ago that the program be de-funded. We have in place an excellent and applauded government program, which is the school drug education program. This is a classic case of duplication. Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr T.K. Waldron: Why couldn’t you let Rotary do what it has done in the past? If it has changed, why could its program not be complementary to what you are already doing? Why do you have to get rid of it? Why couldn’t it still run and be complementary and fit in with the other program? Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: For two reasons. One is that it was duplicating another program. I know that that does not answer the member’s question. The second reason has already been given by the Premier; that is, that there is generally a lack of funding for the health system to meet its priorities and that this has been exacerbated by the decision of the federal Government to reduce the State’s funding by $110 million over the next five years. That is the truth of the matter. I am sorry that what I had to say has been hurtful to Rotary, but that is what the review by the department said about it. People may not want to hear it. The second truth is that the Commonwealth Government has taken $110 million out of its forward estimates for health care in Western Australia. Members opposite do not want to hear that, but it is the truth. That $110 million is a lot of money that I will need to make up. That money will go into priority areas of health care. Those priorities and the need for additional expenditure are beginning to emerge through the Reid review of health care. I want to make sure that when there is clear duplication such as this, we save that money and put it towards higher priorities in the future.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.