Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill

I move, That the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill be now read a second time. Fakalofa lahi atu, Mr Assistant Speaker. The bill received its first reading in February of this year and was referred to the Law and Order Committee. I would like to thank the chairman of that committee, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, and the members of the committee for their consideration of this bill and for the sensible changes that have been recommended. This bill will enable the Department of Corrections and the police to require bailees and community-based offenders to undergo alcohol and drug testing to ensure compliance with their conditions—these conditions, of course, being the prohibition on the use of alcohol and drugs.

These conditions are imposed by the courts as a condition of bail or a community-based sentence, or by the Parole Board as a condition of release or an extended supervision order. They are imposed to reduce the risk of reoffending by that individual. Current legislation does not provide a clear authority for the Department of Corrections and the police to test offenders and bailees with these conditions for the prohibition of the use of alcohol or other drugs. The bill addresses this problem by creating a legislative mandate for the testing of these offenders and bailees. In practice, resources will be focused on testing those people who pose the highest risk of causing serious harm if they are to use alcohol or drugs.

The bill allows rules about testing methods and procedures to be made by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police. These rules will be guided by the principles that are set out in the bill—namely, that testing should be no more intrusive than is reasonably necessary; secondly, that testing should take place no more often than is reasonably necessary; and, thirdly, that those being tested are afforded as much privacy and dignity as is consistent with the purpose of that testing.

It is well-known that drug and alcohol misuse is a major driver of crime. The ability to test offenders and bailees for alcohol and drug use will provide both the Department of Corrections and the police with a useful tool to counteract the harm that substance abuse plays in contributing to offending in our communities. Drug and alcohol testing will complement the significant effort that the department has put into increasing offenders’ access to drug and alcohol treatment. In recent years, particular emphasis has been placed on improving access to programmes for remand and short-serving prisoners and the delivery by probation staff of brief interventions to offenders in the community.

Successful interventions to address an offender’s substance abuse problems can make a significant difference in that person’s life and in that person’s family’s lives. I recently announced that the Department of Corrections will spend over $8.6 million over the next 3 years to develop and deliver a drug and alcohol post-release programme. We have a range of drug and alcohol treatment programmes available in prison, but I think that we can do much more in the community to support released prisoners to leave substance abuse behind and live better lives, free of crime. This new programme to promote rehabilitation, along with drug and alcohol testing to promote compliance, will work together to tackle drug and alcohol abuse in our communities and reduce reoffending.

The Law and Order Committee has reported the bill back to the House with a number of improvements that will enhance the effectiveness of this regime, and I would like to just briefly mention four of those significant amendments. First, the bill now includes powers to test for psychoactive substances, which, as you know, have been the scourge of society. Of police detainees who have experienced problems related to drug and alcohol use, 8 percent attribute their substance abuse problems to synthetic cannabis use. Amending the bill to allow testing for psychoactive substances reflects the adverse effects that these products can have on users and on their relationship with their offending.

Secondly, the bill has also been amended to ensure that the Department of Corrections and police will be able to test those who had drug and alcohol conditions that were imposed before the bill was enacted and that are still in effect at the time of the enactment. This was previously unclear in the bill as introduced to the House, and this amendment will help to enhance public safety by ensuring that this category of people can be tested.

Thirdly, a new part has been inserted into the bill to allow for the testing of people on protective supervision orders who have a condition prohibiting the use of alcohol and drugs. Protective supervision orders were introduced as part of the public protection order regime that was enacted into law in December of last year, and this amendment will help to strengthen the compliance with that regime.

Finally, an amendment has been made in relation to the penalties for non-compliance with the testing regime in the bail context, so the bill creates an offence of refusing entry to an authorised person for purposes relating to continuous monitoring equipment. This enables the deployment of technologies that provide for remote monitoring of alcohol use.

The Law Society’s submission on the bill as introduced noted that the penalties for committing this particular offence were unduly harsh for bailees. The bill has subsequently been amended to treat this offence as a breach of bail conditions, which is consistent with the existing approach to bail. The select committee has also made a number of other sensible and more minor technical amendments to the bill in response to submissions and advice from officials.

To sum up, breaking the cycle of substance abuse in crime is crucial to the good governance goal of reducing reoffending. This bill will make an important contribution towards this goal, and, as a consequence, will enhance public safety and security. That is why I commend this bill to the House. Fakauelahi.

The Labour Party supports this bill. As is quite common at the Law and Order Committee, when we have legislation that is evidence-driven and designed to increase the security of the community, all sides of the House can work together on that legislation, both to support it and to improve it, as the Minister has acknowledged in his speech. I think that we have improved this legislation.

Is the legislation necessary? Yes. I think it is common sense that if the Department of Corrections and the police can require offenders and those on bail to abstain from the use of alcohol or drugs, then you have to have a law that can ensure compliance with the conditions that might be imposed by the court or might be imposed by the Parole Board. It is a nonsense to actually have the directive “You must abstain from alcohol and drugs.”, and then not have a mechanism to ensure that the person those orders are placed upon is actually complying with it. So it was a matter of common sense that we should support this.

I think it is well-known to the public and, certainly, to members of the House that alcohol and drugs are a major factor, a major driver, in criminal offending. I think that at the point of arrest, nearly half—48 percent—of those arrested are affected at that time by drugs and alcohol. When you look at the people who are on home detention and community supervision, that proportion of a half of those at the time of arrest becomes two-thirds of those given those sentences who are affected by drug or alcohol abuse or addiction. So drugs and alcohol are important drivers, and if we want to stop recidivism and stop people offending while they are on bail or on community sentences, then enforcing this provision is absolutely necessary.

I think that the corrections system has an absolute responsibility to minimise the risk to the community. When you look at the number of people whom conditions are imposed on, there is an awful lot of them. Some 5,000 people on community sentences have conditions not to use alcohol or drugs, and 15,000 people on bail each year have that same condition. If we were going to apply testing to all of those people, we would be talking about tens of millions of dollars, and that is not going to be very practicable, so what this bill does—sensibly, I think—is target those who are most at risk. The whole Australian experience in this area is that when you target those most at risk, you have the greatest impact. The American experience is that where a person is on a sentence and they think there is a high chance of being detected if they breach compliance with those conditions, then the rate of reoffending goes down quite significantly, and we all hope that that will happen with this bill.

Most of the submissions on this bill were from organisations that were not opposed to having compliance—it is hard to be opposed to requiring compliance—they just wanted to make sure that the testing was reasonable and did not constitute harassment. I think that we have this well covered.

We did not pick up many of the specific recommendations of the submitters, but we very strongly supported the principles that are set out for the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police when they make the rules on testing methods and procedures. Those principles are, firstly, that the testing should not be more than reasonably necessary; secondly, that those tested should be afforded reasonable privacy and dignity; and, thirdly, that testing should be no more intrusive than necessary. If those principles are followed, then I think the way in which this compliance is enforced will make sense and will be widely supported.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.