 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
DRUGS
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General a question about drug assessment and treatment.
Leave granted.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This question, in part, can be answered by the Attorney and, in part, may need to be responded to by the minister for health. My question refers to recent figures from the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel that showed the number of people charged rising from 400 in June 1996 to 800 in June 1999. Interestingly, of this increase, a more significant number were women and younger people than has been the case before. As the minister will be aware, the issue of drug law reform is something about which I have been concerned for some time. In fact, I have argued for drug use to be considered as a health issue rather than a criminal offence to which punitive response is meted out.
I think that the pre-court drug diversion initiative has had very strong support in the community. One concern that has been expressed in the past is that there has been a long waiting list for the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel, and also that that panel was hampered in its ability to work due to limited resources going into treatment programs to which the panel might refer clients.
I understand that in the recent state budget the government responded to the backlog of cases in the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel by increasing the budget, and that has been generally applauded. However, my understanding is that no significant extra moneys have gone into treatment programs. If that is the case, it could lead to another bottleneck-that people are referred from the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel but treatment places simply are not available. There is also a concern that some people are finding their way to the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel because other programs are full; that some people who might themselves have presented to programs cannot get in; and that the only way they will get in is via the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel.
I ask the Attorney-General to respond to whether or not he feels that there are sufficient resources available for the Drug Assessment and Aid Panel in terms of the services to which it wants to refer people and, if there is a restriction on services, whether that actually increases the number of people who end up coming before it because they cannot access those services directly without, I guess, getting into trouble with the police first.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): A comprehensive package for funding and initiatives was announced at the time of the current year's budget. An extra $2.6 million was allocated in the current financial year to a drug strategy package with a lot of the emphasis upon early intervention, drug courts and so on.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Drug courts are very expensive without many people going through.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Yes. I will have to bring back the precise detail. I know that money went into drug assessment and aid panels; additional money was made available for police diversion programs; and additional money is going into the provision of services, which goes to the support of those programs.
From the information I can quickly pick up, there was $150 000 in 1999-2000 and $140 000, I think, in the subsequent year to reduce the waiting list for drug assessment and aid panels dealing essentially with simple drug use offences. The current year's budget also provides for an evaluation of drug assessment and aid panels. An evaluation of those panels and their effectiveness had not been made since their inception, which I think was back in the mid to late 1980s.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: All reports say they are doing a good job.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Yes, but there has been no real evaluation. I am very supportive of appropriate evaluation programs for all of them because, even though there might be a feel-good outcome, it is important to ensure that that is matched by reality. So, that is being evaluated. Obviously, as the honourable member says, the success of referral and diversion is, in part, due to a concomitant availability of assessment, counselling and treatment services. In the current year, $300 000 has been made available for enhancing those services to cater for people who have undergone compulsory assessment. I think that that amount increases to $500 000, but I am not sure whether in the next year or the subsequent year.
Then, as the honourable member indicated, money has been made available for the drug court trial, in respect of which there will be money for support services, because there is not much point having a drug court trial if you cannot provide through the courts the services necessary to ensure that all appropriate support is given.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: That's not an ideal way to access the services, though.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: No, I agree. Nevertheless, if there are offenders and if we can deal with them in this way, it is important to try to do so. Then there is money available for dealing with drugs in prisons. I will get the full details of the package for the honourable member and bring back a reply in due course.
See also the Government's response to this issue on: 28 March 2000
