Page 3487 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Stephen-Smith: No, this is attendance at the diversion.
MR DAVIS: Indeed; thank you. I am sorry; I will scratch that and start again. This amendment ensures that those who choose to undertake the diversion program associated with the simple drug offence notice scheme will not be subject to overly prescriptive attendance requirements to meet the requirements of their infringement notice. We know that person-centred support is the best way to incline our community to get help.
Currently, people who need support cannot access that support for fear of a punitive response. While I believe that this is unintentional, the amendments proposed by the Minister for Health prescribe a program that risks denying individuals the flexibility of a program that meets their needs.
This amendment will attempt to rectify this problem by making the obligation of individuals attending the drug diversion programs no more than attending the first session of the program. We know, from what experts have told us, that attendance at health services, in and of itself, is a challenge for those who are affected by drug dependence. That is why it is integral to make these services as approachable and as flexible as possible.
The amendment will ensure that an individual attending the drug diversion program will only need to attend their first program within 60 days. This will give them the flexibility to cater the continuation of their program to other competing work, family and personal needs.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (5.32): We will not be supporting the amendment. Basically, what we are trying to do, through this, is to get people onto treatment programs. The minister has outlined that you have to do the course of that program. Surely, that is the whole intent of this legislation. But Mr Davis is saying that you just turn up, sign your name and go. That is not drug treatment. That is just tick and flick. That is just going through the motions. That does not achieve anything. But that fits in with what the Greens want, which is, in actual fact, quasi-legalisation. They actually want legalisation. But if you cannot get legalisation, the only effect of having what I consider to be pretty large quantities of drugs on you is to turn up, sign your name and go. That is what they want. That is not treatment. That is signing your name and leaving the meeting, probably before it even starts. You just have to rock up. It is ridiculous.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Families and Community Services and Minister for Health) (5.33): Labor will be supporting Mr Davis’s amendment. The reason is that, realistically, the assessment session is not just a matter of rocking up, and having a tick and a flick. It is an engagement with the individual. We know, as I said earlier, that the most effective response for people is when they voluntarily engage in programs. It is not effective to require someone to attend a program that they are not interested in. We think that while the diversion program is more complex, actually requiring someone to attend the assessment session is a sufficient requirement to discharge the notice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video