Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Bill 2004
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I indicate that we will support the Government’s Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Bill. The object of this bill is to amend certain Acts of Parliament to establish a scheme to provide for the compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of recidivist drug-dependent offenders. Under the proposed compulsory drug treatment scheme certain eligible convicted offenders are to be referred to the Drug Court of New South Wales for assessment. To be eligible for the program an offender must: first, appear to have a long-term drug dependency; second, have been convicted of an offence related to the offender’s drug dependency and lifestyle and been sentenced to imprisonment with an unexpired non-parole period of at least 18 months but not more than 3 years; and, third, have been convicted of other offences at least three times in the previous five years.
The proposal will provide a legal basis for the first Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre. This will be a secure wing of the Parklea Prison, and it will be established before the end of 2005. It will deal with only a small number of offenders—approximately 100 male offenders—and, if then considered suitable, the program will be extended to female offenders. My visits to the Emu Plains women’s prison on a number of occasions have revealed to me that approximately 83 per cent of all females in prison have offended while under the influence of drugs. It is quite obvious to those who spend time talking to the women in the Emu Plains prison—as I have done—that they are still able to find drugs, are being supplied with drugs, and are using drugs.
The Government is seeking better outcomes in respect of offenders who have such a long-term drug addiction and an associated life of crime and constant imprisonment. Those people have failed to enter into any voluntary-based drug rehabilitation programs. Might I say there is no compulsion to undertake a rehabilitation course. The only compulsion relates to staying in the prison while the course is conducted. Overseas jurisdictions, particularly in Scandinavia and The Netherlands, have shown that compulsory links to the justice system is one good option for dealing with such repeat offenders.
The program is dedicated to be abstinence-based compulsory treatment, rehabilitation and education. As was mentioned by the Minister when speaking about this bill, the treatment is in a number of stages, with each determining that a person, through personal case management and individual development plans, might move on to the next stage. It is estimated that 80 per cent of all offenders in our prisons committed offences while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. The compulsory scheme I approve. I say that because, in a not-for-profit organisation, I have set up a number of drug rehabilitation programs that involve personal case management and individual plans as well as staged development of persons. Of course, the people in those programs enter them voluntarily, rather than undergo programs that are in the prison system.
The proposed scheme consists of three stages. One is the closed detention area, where they will be in a secure wing in Parklea Prison, then under closed detention they will have to undergo an agreed series of programs that will include helping offenders to attend training programs, social programs and drug treatment programs. Offenders will then be able to progress from one stage to the next, provided they have spent at least six months in the previous stage and have shown some sign of progress. The bill empowers the Drug Court to regress an offender to a lower stage of detention if the offender fails to comply with his or her personal plan. My experience is that case management and establishing a series of key performance indicators challenges people to lift their performance to a certain level. If they fail upon the agreed program they will regress in the staged process.
It is important that the Government put this in its armoury of programs to deal with drug abuse in our community. It will cost about $6 million in the first year and will deal with only a small number of offenders, but it will provide another option to the courts. We have spent a great deal of money on non-performing areas of work. For example, the current Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, has advocated the development of a medically supervised injecting centre for Redfern similar to the one in Kings Cross, against the wishes of the Aboriginal community, who have made it clear that they do not want a supervised injecting centre. It is important to realise that in the assessment of the medically supervised injecting centre there is no room for great enthusiasm. For example, the evaluation of the medically supervised injecting centre indicated that the operation is feasible, that a number of people went through the centre, but to quote from the New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service Briefing Paper No 7/04:
There was no detectable change in heroin overdoses at the community level, but a small number of heroin overdoses managed at the centre may have been fatal had they occurred elsewhere.
I questioned the medical supervisor of the centre about what she meant by “may have been fatal” elsewhere. Dr Ingrid van Beek indicated that even if a person nodded off to sleep, that person would be regarded as having been saved by the centre. I said that nodding off to sleep was not necessarily a precursor to death, but she indicated that in some situations a person who nodded off to sleep may deteriorate seriously. I would not claim that anything had been done to rescue a person who nodded off to sleep in the centre. The briefing paper stated that the medically supervised injecting centre may refer people for drug treatment, especially if they are frequent attendees. But in speaking to other agencies involved in the treatment of confirmed heroin addicts, few centres would comment that they had ever seen any referrals of such persons.
Certainly organisations such as the Salvation Army and Wesley Mission have never received such referrals. Contrary to the findings of the medically supervised injecting centre evaluation, some police officers, business owners and community members maintain that the centre attracts drug dealers who conduct activities near the centre. Because drugs are not provided, people have to find the money to purchase them. The centre is a honey pot: dealers know that people in the area want drugs. That would not happen if compulsory treatment were carried out within a correctional centre. In December 2003 the local area commander, Superintendent Dave Darcy, was quoted as saying:
I’m trying to improve the railway station as an amenity the best way that I can but I’ve also got the injecting centre across the road and I can’t do anything about it … [the centre is right] in the heart of Kings Cross at a point in time when things are so dynamically changing within our business community. I believe it’s in the wrong place and business is hurting because of it.
His opinion would be supported by the indigenous people of Redfern if such a plan were mooted for that area. We support a person under management of personal care and development plans in the correctional centre moving through the various stages of education and rehabilitation. It is not the full answer, but it is a positive answer. We commend the Government for the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Bill, which is one of the continued armoury of suggestions for dealing with the drug problem that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has mentioned in this place over many years.