Page 2508 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 31 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ultimately, though, she is recommending a youth drug court and crossover list for the many young people who are subject to both criminal and child protection proceedings. I acknowledge that this approach is broadly in line with the policy thinking behind the establishment of our new drug and alcohol court for adults in this jurisdiction. The new drug and alcohol court will use a restorative approach, and that is what we need for our young people.
I will talk more shortly on the issues of responding to child and youth trauma, the deep and integrated issue of trauma and child protection and the far too common overlap with youth mental health. But on the matter of youth drug use, I would just like to acknowledge again the distress and frustration that a family experiences when their loved one is clearly in the midst of risky substance use and addiction.
In these cases, where perhaps there may be no diagnosed mental illness or identified care and protection issues, the ACT does offer a range of services. But unless court ordered—usually as a result of a criminal offence—these services are not mandatory. That means that for people who have not become involved in the criminal system, there is, I think in many people’s eyes, a gap there where they are not voluntarily willing to be involved. I think that is the point that Mrs Kikkert was touching on earlier today.
There is actually a variety of good reasons why it is not mandatory. In general, it is our understanding that addiction specialists are pretty unanimous that mandatory compulsory drug and alcohol treatment is not ideal. It is partially an issue of motivation and desire to change and partially a matter of effectively enforced medical treatment. Having said that, as I noted, courts can and do currently make orders for offenders of all ages to attend treatment services. It is hoped that the providers themselves have the skills necessary to build a rapport with the individual and to work with them to address their substance use.
However, these orders are delivered in the context of criminal offending and existing legal frameworks. That is a matter of some debate that we continue to have, and need to have further, regarding the need to re-evaluate our society’s approach to drugs from being a criminal matter to instead being a health matter. That is a view I have articulated in this place on many occasions and one that I think is also very relevant in this discussion. However, in the interests of time I will not speak on that point further in this debate, particularly as the motion is constructive and focused on children and young people with more complex needs.
That leads me to emphasise that most often the underlying reasons for young people resorting to problematic drug use are trauma, abuse and neglect. Addressing the underlying causes in my view, and in the Greens’ general approach to policy in this space, is key to resolution and restoration of a normal life.
Approaches to dealing with drug taking, especially for young people, in our view should not be punitive. A punitive approach we do not believe will get us anywhere. We really need to be much better at addressing trauma as the underlying cause. People, whether young or old, often resort to drugs to self-medicate. They are medicating
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video