This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/27/australia-northern-territory

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Northern Territory alcohol mandatory treatment is an affront to liberty Northern Territory alcohol mandatory treatment is an affront to liberty
(3 months later)
Throughout Australia, legal systems generally confine imprisonment to cases of serious criminal misconduct and contain safeguards that protect individual liberty. This is rightly so. Prison should be used as an option of last resort. Given this fundamental starting point, it is concerning that legislation currently before the Northern Territory parliament seeks to remove safeguards and significantly limit the liberty of people who are drunk in public.Throughout Australia, legal systems generally confine imprisonment to cases of serious criminal misconduct and contain safeguards that protect individual liberty. This is rightly so. Prison should be used as an option of last resort. Given this fundamental starting point, it is concerning that legislation currently before the Northern Territory parliament seeks to remove safeguards and significantly limit the liberty of people who are drunk in public.
The laws are unprecedented in Australia; they will give a tribunal (not a court) the power to issue orders for people to be held in secure residential treatment facilities for up to three months. Breaching treatment orders will be a criminal offence, punishable by up to three months imprisonment.The laws are unprecedented in Australia; they will give a tribunal (not a court) the power to issue orders for people to be held in secure residential treatment facilities for up to three months. Breaching treatment orders will be a criminal offence, punishable by up to three months imprisonment.
There is no doubt that alcohol is a problematic issue in the Northern Territory. Its misuse has clear impacts upon the safety, health and wellbeing of individuals, families and communities. This cost a community of just over 200,000 people around $642 million every year.There is no doubt that alcohol is a problematic issue in the Northern Territory. Its misuse has clear impacts upon the safety, health and wellbeing of individuals, families and communities. This cost a community of just over 200,000 people around $642 million every year.
It has become increasingly clear over the decades that alcohol misuse is a population wide problem, and that addiction should be treated through the health system. As such, throughout Australia there has generally been a move away from punishing alcoholism to a focus on minimising the harm associated with alcohol misuse.It has become increasingly clear over the decades that alcohol misuse is a population wide problem, and that addiction should be treated through the health system. As such, throughout Australia there has generally been a move away from punishing alcoholism to a focus on minimising the harm associated with alcohol misuse.
This change is evident in the decriminalisation of public drunkenness that has occurred in many states, and was a recommendation of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. The approach underlies the current national drug strategy (including alcohol) which has three key pillars of demand reduction, supply reduction, and harm reduction. There is strong evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach. Research has demonstrated that population level measures such as restrictions on the supply of alcohol, whether by cost, amount, or limits on its sale have been effective in mitigating some of the harms caused by alcohol. These alternatives will not remove the harm caused by the misuse of alcohol, but they are able to reduce them.This change is evident in the decriminalisation of public drunkenness that has occurred in many states, and was a recommendation of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. The approach underlies the current national drug strategy (including alcohol) which has three key pillars of demand reduction, supply reduction, and harm reduction. There is strong evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach. Research has demonstrated that population level measures such as restrictions on the supply of alcohol, whether by cost, amount, or limits on its sale have been effective in mitigating some of the harms caused by alcohol. These alternatives will not remove the harm caused by the misuse of alcohol, but they are able to reduce them.
An approach that has been endorsed at a national level and is supported by solid experience and a strong body of evidence is being ignored by the Northern Territory government to the tune of $100 million. Alarmingly, this significant sum is being spent despite the fact that there is no evidence supporting the long term effectiveness of treating drug and alcohol misuse through involuntary residential treatment. What is clear, however, is that this scheme will impact upon Aboriginal people who, for a variety of reasons, make up nearly nine out of every 10 episodes of police protective custody in the Northern Territory.An approach that has been endorsed at a national level and is supported by solid experience and a strong body of evidence is being ignored by the Northern Territory government to the tune of $100 million. Alarmingly, this significant sum is being spent despite the fact that there is no evidence supporting the long term effectiveness of treating drug and alcohol misuse through involuntary residential treatment. What is clear, however, is that this scheme will impact upon Aboriginal people who, for a variety of reasons, make up nearly nine out of every 10 episodes of police protective custody in the Northern Territory.
Taken as a whole, the Northern Territory scheme represents a highly coercive approach that neglects fundamental rights and liberties in favour of criminalising some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Jesuit Social Services has been standing in solidarity with marginalised communities and individuals for over 36 years. In the Northern Territory, we work in Alice Springs and in remote communities in Central Australia. We have on the ground experience and are across the evidence about what actually works. And we know that that is not locking people up.Taken as a whole, the Northern Territory scheme represents a highly coercive approach that neglects fundamental rights and liberties in favour of criminalising some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Jesuit Social Services has been standing in solidarity with marginalised communities and individuals for over 36 years. In the Northern Territory, we work in Alice Springs and in remote communities in Central Australia. We have on the ground experience and are across the evidence about what actually works. And we know that that is not locking people up.
As far as public policy goes, very few pieces of Australian legislation have so blatantly disregarded basic human rights to personal freedom. While some other states have schemes that allow for secure residential treatment of people with drug and alcohol dependency, these schemes are confined to the most exceptional circumstances. In Victoria, secure treatment can only be used where a person has severe health problems and lacks the capacity to make decisions for himself/herself. Under the Victorian scheme, secure treatment can only be ordered for 14 days and this order must be made by a court.As far as public policy goes, very few pieces of Australian legislation have so blatantly disregarded basic human rights to personal freedom. While some other states have schemes that allow for secure residential treatment of people with drug and alcohol dependency, these schemes are confined to the most exceptional circumstances. In Victoria, secure treatment can only be used where a person has severe health problems and lacks the capacity to make decisions for himself/herself. Under the Victorian scheme, secure treatment can only be ordered for 14 days and this order must be made by a court.
In stark contrast, the criteria for the proposed Northern Territory scheme are much broader and the Tribunal can order people be detained for treatment for up to three months. Further, by making it a criminal offence not to comply with mandatory treatment, this scheme runs the risk of bringing greater numbers of people into the criminal justice system as a consequence of behaviour that was not criminal in the first place.In stark contrast, the criteria for the proposed Northern Territory scheme are much broader and the Tribunal can order people be detained for treatment for up to three months. Further, by making it a criminal offence not to comply with mandatory treatment, this scheme runs the risk of bringing greater numbers of people into the criminal justice system as a consequence of behaviour that was not criminal in the first place.
Ultimately, punishing public drunkenness will go nowhere near resolving the wider community and public health issues that lie at the heart of the Northern Territory’s problems with alcohol misuse. It is therapeutic treatment that has been proven to reduce the harms of alcohol. These approaches are likely to be far less costly than the $100 million mandatory treatment regime.Ultimately, punishing public drunkenness will go nowhere near resolving the wider community and public health issues that lie at the heart of the Northern Territory’s problems with alcohol misuse. It is therapeutic treatment that has been proven to reduce the harms of alcohol. These approaches are likely to be far less costly than the $100 million mandatory treatment regime.
Efforts to share the burden across the community through constructive approaches can be a more difficult political sell than coming down strongly on highly visible and marginalised groups, however the former approach is less discriminatory and does not undermine fundamental liberties. Also, instead of transplanting community problems so they are out of sight and out of mind, it provided an opportunity to strengthen community resolve to tackle to problems and build safer and more cohesive communities. Efforts to share the burden across the community through constructive approaches can be a more difficult political sell than coming down strongly on highly visible and marginalised groups, however the former approach is less discriminatory and does not undermine fundamental liberties. Also, instead of transplanting community problems so they are out of sight and out of mind, it provided an opportunity to strengthen community resolve to tackle to problems and build safer and more cohesive communities. 
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.