XN000022-1986-03-12 — Page 10

L

8

--

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1986

HE SAID THE FIRST PROPOSAL IN THE BILL WAS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DETENTION PERIOD OF A PERSON DETAINED IN AN ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRE FROM FOUR MONTHS TO TWO MONTHS.

EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT MANY DRUG ADDICTS RESPONDED RAPIDLY TO TREATMENT AND DID NOT NEED TO BE DETAINED FOR AS LONG AS FOUR MONTHS, HE SAID.

AS REGARDS THE SECOND PROPOSAL, MR THOMAS SAID THAT AT PRESENT, THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT IF A PERSON IS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING TWO YEARS WHEN HE IS ALREADY THE SUBJECT OF A SUPERVISION ORDER, OR RECALL ORDER, MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, OR A DETENTION ORDER, THAT ORDER IS SUSPENDED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT BUT AGAIN TAKES EFFECT WHEN THAT PERIOD EXPIRES.

THE BILL SOUGHT TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT FROM TWO YEARS TO NINE MONTHS.

MR THOMAS SAID THIS AMENDMENT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY BECAUSE AN ADDICT WHO SERVED A PRISON SENTENCE OF LONGER THAN ABOUT NINE MONTHS TENDED TO BECOME STIGMATISED AS A PRISONER.

+HE TENDS TO BE LESS WILLING TO CO-OPERATE DURING AFTER-CARE AND FURTHER DETENTION IN A DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRE PRODUCES LITTLE IN THE WAY OF IMPROVED BEHAVIOUR.

+RETURNING SUCH A PERSON TO A TREATMENT CENTRE, OR TO SUPERVISION, AFTER NINE MONTHS OR MORE OF IMPRISONMENT IS GENERALLY FOUND TO BE UNPRODUCTIVE, HE SAID.

THE THIRD PROPOSAL SOUGHT TO ENSURE THAT A PERSON RELEASED FROM A TREATMENT CENTRE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY RECALLED WOULD IN MOST CASES HAVE THE BENEFIT OF FURTHER SUPERVISION WHEN RELEASED THE SECOND TIME.

MR THOMAS SAID THERE WAS NO PROVISION AT PRESENT FOR A PERSON RELEASED FROM RECALL TO BE PROVIDED WITH FURTHER SUPERVISION AND SO A PERSON WAS DEPRIVED OF SUPERVISION AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS POSSIBLY MOST IN NEED OF IT.

FINALLY, IF A PERSON WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF A SUPERVISION ORDER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT ON A CRIMINAL MATTER AND PLACED ON PROBATION, THE LAW AT PRESENT PROVIDED FOR DUAL SUPERVISION, BY BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND THE DIRECT OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

+THIS IS CLEARLY AN UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF EFFORT AND A WASTE OF RESOURCES. SO THE BILL PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH CASES THE SUPERVISION ORDER MADE UNDER THE DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES ORDINANCE WILL LAPSE.+

MR THOMAS TOLD LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THESE WERE ALL VALUABLE CHANGES TO THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF DRUG ADDICTS AND DESERVED SUPPORT.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

19

Page 10Page 11