Clendon David: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am also pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in supporting this bill. I guess echoing the comments of my colleague Jan Logie it is good that at this late point on a Thursday we can find a level of agreement in the House at the end of what has been quite an acrimonious week—and with good reason I think—in the House. I think it is fair to say that probably a lot of members of the public would express some surprise that people on community sentences—bailees parolees and the like—who have drug and alcohol conditions placed on them are not already subject to some form of compliance other than the obvious of course. For example a police officer might see someone on bail in a pub with a beer in their hand. They are obviously offending but to actually be able to monitor to ensure compliance through a testing regime is something we probably ought to have looked at some time ago. So it is good that at this point this bill is coming to the House and that we will in future have a measure of some legitimate framework for actually testing compliance with these very important conditions.We know very well of course that alcohol and drug abuse are two major drivers of crime in New Zealand. Alcohol particularly is probably the single most serious driver of violent offending in New Zealand. The point is made in the report back from the Law and Order Committee which considered this bill that something like two-thirds of people who are on home detention supervision or intensive supervision in the community are people with measurable and often serious drug and alcohol abuse or addiction problems. I have actually heard District Court judges suggest that something like 75 to 80 percent of the people whom they see in that sorry parade before them—people who have been charged with offences—have offended while there has been alcohol or drugs involved. Either they are under the influence or in some measure there is an involvement with drugs and alcohol. So it is a serious problem and clearly one we need to deal with not only at a legislative level but certainly in terms of our own national culture particularly around alcohol use and abuse.So we think it is a good bill. It puts a level of control on people. Yes it does impose a level of intervention in people’s lives but given the serious nature of the consequences when drugs and alcohol are used unwisely we think it is appropriate.It was a good select committee. I sat on it and I think we hit the right spot the right level. Again referring to the select committee report it makes the point that imposing and enforcing drug and alcohol conditions will play an important role in preventing reoffending and ensuring public safety. I think it is true to a point. I think this framework for measuring compliance is a necessary element but on its own it is not sufficient to ensure public safety and that is a point I will return to.I think there is an upside to this. Some offenders no doubt will find it an imposition that they are obliged to concede to these tests but there is an upside. The provision that we got put into the bill is that if people are tested then the results of those tests—assuming they demonstrate sobriety and abstinence from drugs or alcohol—can be used in other proceedings as evidence. For example if somebody is endeavouring to get visitation rights to children or some such the evidence gathered from these tests can be used as evidence that these people are sober and perhaps in a better condition. It might assist them in getting access to children or whatever the situation might be. So I think there is an upside. There is a positive side to the obligations placed on these people.There was some conversation about the appropriateness of the conditions of bail often being set by registrars and the point was made that given that the new testing regime will impose a higher level of intervention in people’s lives perhaps it should be a judicial officer who would solely be able to impose these conditions. I guess again the compromise that was found was that a registrar will continue to be able to impose conditions as is current practice but if the offender raises any objection to that then it will be a judicial officer who is called upon to actually make that call. I think that also reflects in part a response to a letter we had from the Chief Justice along those lines. A submission from the Chief Justice pointed out that perhaps it was more appropriate that it be a judge or a judicial officer who does impose this.I think it is also worth noting that the Chief District Court Judge also noted that the bill has the effect of raising the threshold for imposing drug and alcohol conditions for a community-based sentence. She expressed some concerns about the resource implications of that that might land on the court and I do think that we need to take cognisance of that and ensure that given the sheer volume of cases that come before the courts that does not impose an unreasonable burden and indeed if it does have a resource implication that the resources are made available to the courts.Finally I would just like to reference a very good submission we received from JustSpeak at the select committee. JustSpeak is the youth wing of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. It made very well-considered and very well-informed and very articulate submissions and this is one of them. It makes the point that it agrees in principle with the intent of the bill. It accepts the value and necessity of imposing some sort of compliance framework on people who have these conditions. But it also argues that there is another side to the coin and I return now to my comment earlier about the legislative requirement to submit being necessary but not sufficient in itself. As I say two-thirds of these people have alcohol or other substance addiction issues. So simply saying “thou shalt not” is a deterrent to an extent but it is not unreasonable to expect that while we impose that condition we also ensure that the resources are in place that the facilities are in place to enable these people to be treated for their drug abuse or their alcohol abuse conditions.I know for a fact because I have measured it—admittedly in a way that was not scientific; it would not stand up to peer review. But anecdotally and being engaged in some of the communities that provide these services I know there is an absolute deficit of treatment programmes available in New Zealand for people with serious drug and alcohol conditions. Be they community-based programmes residential programmes—almost without exception those programmes are oversubscribed. Where people are coming voluntarily to them saying “Look I’ve got a problem.” and they recognise that very often they will be obliged to wait a number of weeks—at the worst end of it even some months—before they can get access to those programmes. Even when people are referred by the court to the treatment programmes often their immediate entry to them cannot be assured because there are capacity problems and I think we need to get real about that. We need to recognise that reality and I think it is in our interests at every level to pump more resource into that and to ensure that we build the capacity for when people either in themselves recognise they have a problem or when the courts determine that they must go and get treatment in an attempt to break their addiction to get them out of that cycle of drug or alcohol abuse.I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those programmes are readily available accessible and on demand. It is no good to say to somebody who might be hanging on by their fingertips to some level of sobriety and keeping away from offending that there is no programme available. I think it is important that they have got quick access to those programmes at the point that they do need them—as I say in their own selves if they have acknowledged their need or when the courts direct them to do so.With that qualification to some extent I do think we need to attend to that matter of the capacity particularly within the community. It is relatively easy I guess for a person serving a custodial sentence to avoid drugs and alcohol—though of course they do exist in our prisons—but there are many more temptations in the way of people in the community. We need to provide them with the support and the assistance they will need to be able to comply with the good intention of this legislation. Thank you.