HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:12): I rise to oppose the member for Stuart's bill. The Police Drug Diversion Initiative announced nationally by the Council of Australian Governments in 1999 aims to allow people charged with simple possession offences to receive health intervention from health professionals to address their drug habit, rather than have them enter the criminal justice system. Statistics have shown that the majority of adults diverted under the scheme successfully undergo treatment and do not reoffend. Seventy-eight per cent of offenders are compliant with the diversion and 71 per cent of offenders are only diverted once. Statistics also show that the scheme is a success regarding appropriately treating people charged with simple possession.

The member for Stuart contends that diversions take up the administrative time of police. This is incorrect. Through discussions with SAPOL we know that they are in favour of the diversion scheme. We are often talking with people who are involved in these situations, and in fact the evidence backs our case. We are often told that people who have a serious addiction need a nest of things around them to recover and not reoffend. Imposing an arbitrary number on the number of times an individual can be diverted will not help.

Drug dependence is a chronic relapsing condition. Under the member for Stuart's proposed scheme, if a person who may have been diverted twice and has been clean for 10 years but then relapses again is caught, the diversion program that has been such a help to them in the first place would no longer be available to them.

While the government supports the diversion scheme and opposes the bill, we agree that something does need to be done to deal with people who are clearly abusing the system. For this reason, the government is exploring an alternative proposal involving the use of undertakings.

Currently, health professionals who treat individuals diverted under the scheme are able to compel offenders to enter into undertakings. Such undertakings would set out, for example, what treatment an individual is expected to participate in. A breach of an undertaking automatically results in the prosecution of the original offence.

The government's alternative proposal will enable the prosecution of offenders who do not properly comply with the diversion process or who are not making genuine efforts to get off drugs. The government's proposal will be introduced to the parliament shortly. For this reason, the government will oppose this bill.

I would like to talk a bit more about some of the things that this proposal talks about. We on the government side want to take an evidence-based approach to drug policy in this state that is led by clinical data as well as justice system information, and these diversions are well placed to provide support for people who are suffering from chronic relapsing drug use or abuse. Only a very small minority of people have been diverted three or more times since the inception of the program in 2001.

SA Health has been working with services and clinicians over the past three years to improve the delivery of the drug diversion health assessments and intervention, and standardised assessment tools and brief interventions are now in place across all services. To further enhance this work, SA Health is proposing to further develop existing policy initiatives, as I mentioned before. SA Police is thoroughly supportive of this approach and is working extensively with SA Health to implement this enhanced treatment approach for this group of recidivist clients.

An undertaking can outline the treatment that the person will undertake, participation in a program of an educative, preventative and rehabilitative nature, and any matters that will, in the opinion of the service, assist the person to overcome any personal problems that may tend to lead to, or that may have led to, the misuse of drugs. The undertaking is effective for a period established by the health service but cannot exceed six months. Such undertakings will always be available at a clinician's discretion. The proposed revised policy will enable this. As I said previously, the government opposes this bill and I put that to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:16): I have to say that I am very disappointed that the government will not support this private member's bill because I think it makes good sense. I am very disappointed that they will not support it essentially on the premise that supporting this bill would remove all the positives of the existing scheme, because that is not the case. It would not prevent the many people who do gain a great deal of benefit from participating in the drug diversion scheme from continuing to do so. It would only actually stop the people who are taking advantage of the scheme from continuing to do so.

The member for Taylor, on behalf of the government, says that allowing people to have two diversions but not a third is just arbitrary. No, it is not arbitrary: it is a number. It is a decision that has to be made, but the reality is that a magistrate could still allow an offender to have a third or fourth or fifth drug diversion program, if the magistrate thought it was appropriate. There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. There is nothing arbitrary about actually just making a decision and making a recommendation.

Keep in mind that we are talking about offenders. We are trying to help offenders get their lives back on track. That is what everybody here should be wanting. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent offenders who are likely to do so from having that opportunity. They could be diverted once; they could be diverted twice. The third time they break the law, a magistrate could decide that they deserve a third opportunity or a fourth or a fifth, potentially, but what this bill does is stop the people who are going numerous times.

As we know from the police report, one person has done it 14 times, one person has done it 32 times. The police annual report will come out perhaps today—or, if not, sometime next week—and we will find out how many other offenders have been taking advantage of the system. This is only about trying to take out of the system the opportunity to take advantage of the system. It is not at all about trying to take the system away from the people who use it responsibly.

This is about people who have broken the law and helping them get back on track, not the people who have broken the law and clearly just want to take advantage of the opportunities given to them and have no intention of getting back on track. The police want this to happen; the public wants this to happen. I would challenge any MP to look into their heart and say that somebody who continually breaks the law in this way deserves an unlimited, never-ending opportunity to just take a program rather than actually face the consequences of the law. The consequences include a magistrate having the capacity to decide that perhaps they need another opportunity or two.

This would provide very immediate, very positive impact for people who clearly are on the wrong path. It is not any sort of a draconian measure in any way whatsoever. It provides great flexibility for people to access the support they need but not to take advantage of that by self-opting to take unlimited opportunities.

It would save police resources and the police seek this support. I put this bill forward during my time as shadow minister for police based on consultation with the police, based on requests from the police. I am very disappointed that the government opposes the bill. I will also be very interested to see if the government shortly proposes something else very similar to the bill and tries to claim the credit itself.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT