Hague Kevin: Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9710. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): For at least the last 30 years the alcohol and other drug treatment sector has been saying with a more or less unanimous voice that the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 has not been fit for purpose and needs to be replaced. So it is certainly with perhaps an overdue sense of welcome that I thank the Minister for his introduction of the bill today.Several other speakers have referred to the Law Commission’s work and I am going to quote from the commission’s report on this matter. It became interested in this topic largely through its very extensive study on controlling and regulating drugs and alcohol in our lives. What the commission said was that one of the most persistent themes from submitters and experts whom it dealt with during that inquiry was the need for robust and effective treatment services which we often lack.One of the things the commission said when it followed up that work by specifically reviewing this Act was this: “One component of any coherent framework for delivering alcohol and drug treatment is the use of compulsion to require people to undertake treatment. Outside of the criminal justice system the only provision for compulsory treatment specifically for dependence can be found in the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. That Act is now outdated and there are difficulties in reconciling the broad powers of detention with the rights and protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Over the years some provisions of the Act have also fallen into disuse and the overall framework of the Act has not kept pace with subsequent changes in allied legislation such as the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Reform of the Act is long overdue.” Hear hear!The framework in the current Act in fact is in some ways more akin to punishment. It is as if legislators were confused about what they were attempting to do. Just as with other aspects of the legal framework that we use to regulate alcohol and other drugs the Green Party believes that we need to move this framework from one that is based on justice and punishment through to one that is actually health-based. Certainly we welcome the emphasis that is in this bill on harm reduction and we specifically welcome the fact that compulsory treatment will used only if that is in the interests of reducing harm to the person concerned.The framework that is set out in this bill is a very substantial step forward. The current Act is unwieldy and often inappropriate. Even in those circumstances where the current Act actually would be helpful it is so hard to use that it often is not and that is the sign I should think of an Act of Parliament that is no longer fit for purpose. Change to it—or rather as Peter Dunne said not change but the replacement of it—has been supported almost unanimously by the sector.It is also worth noting that it was a recommendation of the National Drug Policy summit in August 2013 which comprised policy makers and treatment providers as well as other stakeholders like the Principals’ Federation and the Police Association. Very many stakeholders in drug policy came together in Wellington and formed a consensus statement about the direction that drug policy should follow. One of its recommendations was that the replacement of this Act was one of the urgent priorities that the Government should undertake.I was reminded as I prepared for this contribution on this bill of a singular day that I spent as the guest of one of the two alcohol and other drug treatment courts that are currently being trialled through the Auckland District Court. Under that approach what is happening is that offenders who are repeatedly in front of the courts for offending that is caused by or related to their alcohol or other drug use are instead offered treatment options under the jurisdiction of the court and I was particularly struck by the very strongly client-centred approach that was being taken by the court. From the judge on down to every other participant in that process the focus seemed to be on providing the best-possible outcomes for that person—reducing their harm and leading them to the best outcomes that were possible.In the afternoon when I saw the offenders appearing before the court seeing the relationship that those offenders had with the court and with everyone concerned I have never—and I have been in many courts over the years—come across such relationships before. They were genuinely therapeutic in nature. Would it not be great if we were able to augment the limited tools that those alcohol and other drug treatment that courts have at their disposal to give them another tool that was useful for them in actually achieving harm reduction for the people they are trying to help? Would that not be great?Some other speakers have raised some concerns about the bill that the select committee will need to take into account and I am particularly mindful of the very thoughtful contribution from Poto Williams. I thought that was an outstanding contribution to this debate. The select committee will need to look at whether the balance has been properly struck between the powers that exist in the bill that are necessarily still coercive and the rights and freedoms that we have determined to be a necessary part of participation in society. As Poto Williams has rightly pointed out there are some examples such as some of the use of electroconvulsive therapy the use of seclusion in some mental health facilities—or the excessive use of seclusion—and the excessive use of restraint where that balance has been struck in the wrong place. Indeed resource constraints as others have referred to can lead to those techniques being more often used and that is something that the select committee is going to be interested in following up I am sure.There is debate about whether compulsory treatment is ever appropriate. There are some who believe that it is not and I am going to be very interested to hear the views of those submitters on the select committee to see whether we have that set right.David Clark is correct to point out that alcohol and other drug treatment services are currently struggling with resourcing. They have falling resourcing in real terms and have increasing need that they need to service. Well actually we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we add to the arsenal of treatment services a useful tool but we then actually hamstring those same services by under-resourcing them. We need to properly resource them to maximise the value of this change that this bill would make.Finally I just want to say would it not be great if we actually took the action that was necessary to prevent harm as well as just to reduce it? I look forward to further action by this House in the bill that we are to debate following this bill and in many others to reduce the harm that can be caused by alcohol and other drug use. Thank you.