Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 September 2016.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:25): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in relation to the Public Intoxication (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2016. This bill originates from a review of the act undertaken by public health expert Chris Reynolds in response to the findings of a Coroner's inquest in 2011. The bill and, for that matter, the Reynolds review reaffirm the commitment in South Australia to a health response to public intoxication, rather than a criminal law based response.

The bill introduces objects and guiding principles to the act, and I think they are worthy of reflection. The first I refer to is the objects, which is to promote the minimisation of harm that may befall a person in a public place as a result of a person's intoxication. I would like to reflect on the fact that the person to whom a harm may be occasioned may not be a person other than the intoxicated person. The person who is threatened with harm may be the intoxicated person: they may fall, they may be a victim of robbery, they may be a victim of physical or sexual assault. Of course, the person who is threatened with harm may be another person. We are all well aware of tragic cases of what is commonly referred to as one-punch deaths.

Alcohol-related violence in public places is a real and current issue. In recent years, police data has shown that 58 per cent of victim-reported crime within the Adelaide CBD was alcohol related. In the same year, alcohol was involved in 65 per cent of both serious and minor assaults. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I am particularly aware of the threat of such violence towards women. The key 2012 ABS Personal Safety Survey showed that 51 per cent of women who had been the victim of physical assault by a male perpetrator reported that the perpetrator had been affected by alcohol or drugs during the most recent incident, while only 8 per cent of victims had been affected at that time. Also, males are more likely to be affected, both as perpetrators and as victims, of alcohol-related attacks.

Creating a situation where intoxicated persons can be removed from a public place and put in a place of safety until they have recovered is a step that is intended to reduce the risk of alcohol-related violence within our communities. The presence of alcohol may increase the risk, but White Ribbon reminds us that alcohol does not cause violence against women. In fact, White Ribbon produces a set of myths about violence against women and one of them relates to alcohol. Myth 8 states:

Violence against women is caused by drugs and/or alcohol

The response, in negation, from White Ribbon is that:

Almost even numbers of sober and drunken people are violent. Where studies do show more drinkers are violent to their partners, the studies are not able to explain why many drunken men (80% of heavy and binge drinkers) did not abuse their wives. Alcohol and other addictive substances are used by abusers to give themselves permission to be violent.

Returning to the bill, let me return to the objects. The objects go on to say that, for the purpose of minimising harm, the object of the act is:

(i) to remove an intoxicated person from a public place in which the person is vulnerable or may become a threat; and

(ii) to take the person to a place of safety until the person is recovered.

The guiding principles state that:

(a) primary concern is to be given to the health and well-being of a person apprehended under this Act;

As I said earlier, this is a health act not a criminal statute, and the opposition supports the maintenance of a decriminalised approach to public drunkenness. But, of course, the criminal law still applies to people who are also subject to this act. People are responsible for creating their own intoxication and they will be held to account for criminal acts under the criminal law. This legislation is dealing with that aspect of the public response which relates to the health response to minimising harm.

I must admit that, in terms of the guiding principles, I am somewhat surprised that the general amenity of public places is not mentioned. The general public and groups such as tourists should be able to go into a public place confident that they will be safe and not be put in a situation of challenging behaviours. The second guiding principle is that:

A person detained under this Act should, wherever practicable, be detained in a place other than a police station.

Data from the South Australia Police shows that about 3,000 people are apprehended under this act each year, and 50 per cent of those people apprehended are Aboriginal South Australians and 50 per cent are discharged from police custody to home or into the care of a friend or relative.

The Reynolds review recommended that the act should apply to land or premises that are not necessarily public places, provided the owner or occupier of the land or premises does not object. Mr Reynolds recommended that the definition of a public place in this act should be similar to that in the Summary Offences Act 1953 and this bill seeks to achieve that.

It is not a general offence to consume alcohol or become intoxicated in a public place; however, there are some public places where the risk of harm is so high and the public utility is high so the amenity of the place is protected by a ban on alcohol consumption, and they are commonly called dry zones. The Reynolds review highlighted that:

…dry areas and the expiation notices associated with them compound the problems of chronically intoxicated persons.

I note that in the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement submission to the liquor licensing review, it informs the review that its workers found that in October 2014 there were a total of 25 community members with unpaid fines totalling $90,000, and in July 2015, there were 28 community members with a total of $299,000 in outstanding fines. Clearly, this is an area where more work needs to be done.

The bill extends the maximum period of detention by police to 12 hours but continues to retain the 18-hour maximum period of detention for declared sobering up centres. Currently, police officers are required by the act to discharge a detained person when they have recovered and can take proper care of themselves but before the expiration of 10 hours. During his review, Dr Reynolds found that:

…a number of people raised concerns about instances where detained persons were released at the expiry of the specified period though still quite intoxicated. This presents a dilemma for workers etc. conscious of their duty of care but also aware of the rights of the person detained.

However, the Reynold's review recommended, and I quote:

The existing period for detention should be replaced with a general sobriety test requiring the release of a person as soon as they are sufficiently sober as to no longer present a risk of harm to themselves or others, though with the new specified maximum limit of 24 hours.

SA Health addiction clinicians advised the government that they did not believe a period of 24 hours is necessary. Advice from addiction medicine clinicians is that a person should be sufficiently recovered after 12 hours to take proper care of themselves. If they are not able to care for themselves after 12 hours, they may well need a health response to recover. We need to be aware that there will be consequences from increasing the time frame. It will inevitably lead to an increase in demand on the resources of the centres, and also on police resources in terms of police custody.

Police custody is a very labour-intensive activity and a police officer supervising custody is a police officer not available on the streets. There is also an increased health risk. A person who is intoxicated, of course, is at risk of vomiting or convulsing. It is a matter for judgement as to when other health interventions will be needed. In the context of this bill, I want to acknowledge, on behalf of the opposition, the work of a range of services in this area, particularly noting the work of the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, the Salvation Army and—given my father's personal involvement in the West End Baptist Mission—the work of Baptist Care.

This bill also addresses the issue of civil liability for people involved in the administration of the act. Management of public intoxication is a challenging area of public health care. Matters of judgement have to be made. The bill recognises that by strengthening the protection for people involved in the administration of the act from civil liability, providing they act in good faith and do so for the purposes of complying with the act, it respects that challenging environment. The Reynolds review did suggest immunity from criminal liability, but that is not pursued in this bill.

The opposition is disappointed in the delay in bringing this legislation forward. In 2011, the Deputy Coroner delivered his findings on the concurrent inquests into the death of six Aboriginal persons who died between 2004 and 2009. In response to those findings, in June 2012 the government committed to an independent review of the Public Intoxication Act. Dr Reynolds, who conducted the review, acted expeditiously. His report was delivered six months later, in December 2012, but it was not until 2015 that the government finally released its response, and draft legislation was not tabled in this parliament until June this year.

It is almost five years since the Deputy Coroner delivered his findings which initiated the review of the Public Intoxication Act. In my view, that is yet another indication of a tired, listless government. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:37): I thank all honourable members who contributed to the second reading of this bill. I would like to be able to place on the record answers to questions raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks in her contribution. Nine of the recommendations made by Dr Reynolds in his 2012 review of the act have been accepted by the government, with 13 recommendations accepted in principle.

Five of the recommendations require the implementation of legislation and are addressed by this bill. Recommendation 16 is about the declaration of sobering up units. Due to the risks associated with detention of a person and the requirements for specialised facilities, no sobering up centres have been declared at this time. Specific additional requirements have been identified as being essential prior to this been considered, including passage of the protections from civil liberty included in this bill. I presume that the honourable member was referring to recommendation 17, which is about the location and funding of sobering up services.

While supported in principle, SA Health has recently undertaken a competitive open tender process for the purchase of specialist drug and alcohol assessment treatment services across South Australia, with contracts in place until 30 June 2020. In accordance with State Procurement Board guidelines, all tender submissions were reviewed against pre-approved evaluation criteria, which included, not only the location of service provision across the state, but also consideration of the service mix and value for money.

I further note that Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia wrote to the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council on 15 February 2016, with a copy of the bill for consultation; however, the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council did not respond. In relation to the Hon. Tammy Franks' further questions, SAPOL officers assess sobriety and intoxication in a wide variety of situations as part of their day-to-day work, which provides them with a good general understanding and discrimination of requirement for detention under the Public Intoxication Act 1984.

SAPOL guidelines contain a general requirement that medical advice is to be obtained when any prisoner appears to be in a confused state. Moreover, medical assistance must be called for any person in police custody, intoxicated or otherwise, whose best verbal response is meaningless and unintelligible and who has no sense of words, and especially if there is no response at all. SAPOL training and guidelines are developed and updated from several sources, including Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia.

Under the Public Intoxication Act 1984 and current police procedures, a person apprehended under the act is monitored and released once sober. It is expected that many people apprehended under this act will not be detained for the full 12 hours. SA Health addiction medicine specialists advise that a person should be sufficiently recovered after 12 hours to take proper care of themselves. If the person is not recovering, then they are likely to be suffering from a more significant health issue. In this situation, police procedures for the safety and wellbeing of persons in their custody apply, rather than the Public Intoxication Act 1984.

SAPOL guidelines are clear regarding when medical advice is required. Continual assessment and reassessment is required throughout the period an officer has responsibility for a person, with alterations in police responses being made to reflect changes over time. In the event a risk assessment identifies that a medical examination is necessary, such assistance is engaged immediately.

The increase in detention time to 12 hours extends the current police custody period by only two hours. It is considered that variation to this extent will have minimal impact for SAPOL, with guidelines already in place requiring police officers to obtain medical assessment or assistance if the degree of intoxication of a person in their custody has not improved within the current maximum detention period.

In addition, SAPOL officers within custodial facilities and elsewhere use the brief coma scale assessment tool as a guide when a person is, or appears to be, suffering from an impaired state of consciousness. In relation to data and reporting on the act, SAPOL has advised SA Health that the Commissioner of Police will consider reporting this data in the SAPOL annual report. This data will include Indigenous status.

The Public Intoxication Act 1984 forms only one part of a wide range of responses to address alcohol and other drug problems as described in the South Australian Alcohol and Other Drug Strategy. The prevalence of alcohol and other drug problems is high amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can be susceptible to alcohol and other drug problems for various reasons. Strategies currently underway that may impact the representation of Aboriginal people under the Public Intoxication Act 1984 include the liquor sale restrictions currently in place in Ceduna, along with the commonwealth government's Ceduna cashless debit card trial.

Treatment services are available statewide through Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia and SA Health funded non-government agencies. Services with an Aboriginal focus include the Mobile Assertive Outreach Substance Misuse Service, based on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, and the Aboriginal Connection Program, a dedicated alcohol and other drug treatment service for Aboriginal people within the inner city and metropolitan areas of Adelaide. This program focuses on those who are homeless and have complex needs. SA Health also funds non-government organisations to operate mobile assistance patrols in Ceduna and Adelaide, providing safe transport for intoxicated people from specific locations to other safe locations or sobering up units.

Development of the next South Australian alcohol and other drug strategy 2017-2021 is currently underway as a joint project between SA Health and the South Australian police. Public consultation on the new draft strategy closed on 29 September 2016. One of the five objectives of the draft strategy is to reduce the harms of alcohol and other drug problems to Aboriginal people. The South Australian police general orders require officers, when releasing an intoxicated person at their place of residence, to assess if there is a responsible adult at the residence to care for the person and to assess that domestic problems are not likely to occur. These are risk and safety issues that police are required to assess in many circumstances, not just under the Public Intoxication Act 1984, and they are dealt with through police policy and procedure.

Risk identification and management is required from the time of arrest and detention, and is ongoing. Risk identification and management is a continuous process in all aspects of the management of persons detained under this act. A person who behaves in an unruly, violent or belligerent manner will not be returned to the home address where there is the potential of domestic problems emerging. They will be detained at a police station under the Public Intoxication Act 1984. Again, I thank all honourable members for their contributions and look forward to a speedy passage through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.