Page 3753 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 24 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I had the opportunity a couple of years ago, when I was attending a corrective services ministers conference in New Zealand, to spend a day at the Auckland drug court. It was very instructive, from the early morning preparations of the judge, then with the range of other stakeholders represented in the court, through to the hearings process in the afternoon. It is very different to the traditional adversarial court process. In this, a range of agencies work together to identify opportunities for changes in the course of somebody’s life by helping them to tackle their underlying reasons for using drugs in a way that has led them into contact with the criminal justice system.
As a society we must reframe our views on drug use as a personal health issue that requires intervention to reduce the harms to both individuals and the community around them. We need to think about it in a different way from those perspectives. Similarly, this is the approach we need to expand to criminal behaviour more broadly. It is only by breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending that we can reduce the impact this offending has on our city in terms of the suffering of victims, the cost to our law enforcement agencies and the all too often frustrations of our legal system. This is about making our community safer and putting the lives of offenders back on track so that they too can have a better life. That leaves all of us better off.
Drug and alcohol courts are sometimes referred to as problem-solving courts, particularly in the United States. That is the key thinking behind both the government’s bill and the subsequent amendments. Combined, they seek to offer a strong and transparent framework for all stakeholders and participants whilst also allowing the new dedicated presiding judge the necessary flexibility to consider the whole of the person before them and take adaptive action as the situation requires.
Substance use, addiction and addictive behaviours are not simplistic problems that can be quickly solved with punitive approaches. Problematic drug use is often informed by trauma, poverty, social isolation and complex neurological interactions, all of which can overlap and become more difficult to overcome as time and circumstances compound each other. It is a fool’s errand to think that addressing these issues is easy, and that is why the legislation before us provides the courts with both time and the required support to really engage with an offender’s needs.
No genuine discussion of treating addictive substance use can ignore that, for some people, it will take more than one attempt to resolve. In fact, it is highly likely that most people seeking treatment will relapse more than once. We need our new drug and alcohol court to operate under that assumption. We also know that people seeking treatment will need more than cognitive behavioural therapy—they may need support with housing, employment and finding new pro-social peer groups. They may need help reconnecting with family and loved ones or addressing underlying and often undiagnosed or poorly treated medical problems and other less obvious but associated addictive behaviours such as gambling.
The examples I provide underline the complexity of seeking to support the people we are dealing with and help them break their cycle of offending for the benefit for themselves and the whole community. In recognition of these facts and complexities, the ACT government has provided increased funding to the community sector. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video