Changes to mandatory alcohol treatment, a step forward?

p2159-cop-pouring-out-beer-By ERWIN CHLANDA

 

At best it’s a constructive reality check. At worst it’s a case of those “best laid plans …” as Alcohol Mandatory Treatment (AMT) becomes less mandatory but – hopefully – more workable.

 

This is what the plan looked like when Health Minister Robyn Lambley spoke to the Alice Springs News Online in April last year: “Once [a] person has been brought into protective custody for the third time in two months, by the police, he will not be able to leave protective custody. He will be handed over by the police to an assessment service.

 

“Then he will be brought before a tribunal and – if it sees fit – he will be taken to the rehabilitation service. There will be no opportunity for that person to choose to attend or not to attend.

 

“He will be fully supervised throughout that process. Once he gets into rehabilitation and he chooses to abscond, he will become the responsibility of the police which will attempt to find that person.

 

“If the rehab place won’t take him back then he will go before a court which may sentence him to prison.”

 

NEWS: It’s not just an invitation. You’re saying to them, like it or not, you’re in there for three months.

 

LAMBLEY: That’s right.

 

Fast forward to today.

 

A rehabilitation order can still be made but the threat of prison if the person absconds from a treatment facility is being removed.

 

However, as Ms Lambley explains today: “As soon as someone absconds, the clock will stop, and when they come back again, and they will – all the people who had absconded were returned – the clock will start again.

 

“They may run away but they will not receive any less mandatory treatment time than was prescribed by the tribunal.”

 

Under the system now being modified, the mandated treatment process was prone to come to an end if the person absconded – albeit he or she could land in jail.

 

But after legislative amendments this month the process will continue as soon as the problem drinker is apprehended again.

 

How often that clock will stop and start ticking is something that remains to be seen.

 

The problem is back to where it was in the lead-up to the 2012 Territory election when getting tough on drunks was a key plank in the CLP platform, and when the rehab facilities had revolving doors. At the end of the day the choice of getting rehab or not is once again up to drunks, not the authorities.

 

p2159-hilltop-drinkersOn the other hand the number of people who can initiate AMT is now being broadened to social workers and others in what’s turned into an industry of dealing with the dark side of booze.

 

The operative word in Ms Lambley’s statement last year clearly was the court may send absconders to prison.

 

In fact, all of the 10 people who were put before the court for absconding received fines, not jail terms. The Minister, of course, has no power over this.

 

(We have asked how many of these fines have been paid and will report the answer when it comes to hand. Attorney General John Elferink says almost $50m in fines are outstanding in the Territory.)

 

Clearly, the public’s hope of getting rowdy drunks out of their face was too big an ask.

 

Alcohol reform campaigner John Boffa welcomes the changes.

 

He says drunks being assessed for treatment are detained for up to 14 days “at a facility hard to escape from”. (However, if they do, see above.)

 

That leaves what Dr Boffa calls “internal motivation” as the deciding factor for a drunk getting rehab – one who doesn’t want to reform, won’t.

 

“If someone after two weeks drying out and assessment hasn’t decided to stay in treatment, then the chances of the treatment being effective are very remote,” says Dr Boffa.

 

“Most people” after two weeks are deciding to stay in treatment.

 

Was it not the initial objective of the scheme to target people who do not want to be cured or reformed? People can now walk away from AMT.

 

Dr Boffa: “They can, after a period of time, but the point I’m making, I think 70% of people won’t. They will, hopefully, be motivated by the initial treatment and will voluntarily stay in treatment. If so this would be a very important outcome.”

 

The new rules are still “a process that initially does not have the consent of the patient, it is a treatment process that is mandated.

 

“It is new ground, it has not been tried in very many parts of the world, but it is no longer a criminal process. We are not sure how effective it is going to be.

 

“For those who decide not to stay in treatment the solution is to reduce supply, so they can’t get access to cheap bulk grog, and make sure, hopefully in the future, to have photo licensing, until these people do decide they want to do something about their problems.”

 

Dr Boffa says the current policy of having cops at bottle shops is a very successful supply limitation strategy.

 

Were the initial rules just too hard to enforce? People were absconding and getting away with it.

 

Dr Boffa: “It’s fair enough to say the facilities that were being built are not prisons, which is good, because you wouldn’t want them to be. It was too hard to track them and bring them back.

 

“Mandatory treatment will still target people who don’t want change. They will be referred to mandatory assessment.”

 

But with the teeth of the law gone, it will be interesting to see how many will choose the path to the ATM rather than the AMT.

 

0908-Todd-drinkers

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Pagan
    Posted November 14, 2014 at 7:37 am

    Alcohol has always been a problem in Alice.
    Like Bronte mentioned above, anyone on welfare excluding the ones Bronte mentioned, regardless of colour or race, should not be able to get alcohol or cigarettes.
    This is not discrimination.
    If employees do not work for their money, they do not get paid.
    Is this not the same? Rules are there to help everyone, not discriminate against the workers.

    View Comment
  2. Bob Durnan
    Posted November 8, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Thanks for your reply Bronte Zadow (Posted November 8, 2014 at 6:48 am.)
    As for how I “would tackle this alcohol problem in this town”: I would do what many of the police, service providers, health professionals, Aboriginal leaders and other citizens have long been asking of the CLP government in Darwin: restore the rule requiring people to produce photo IDs when purchasing alcohol, so they can prove to the salesperson that they are not currently banned from buying grog.
    That is, I would reactivate the banned drinkers register and the computerised system to enable this to work.
    I would continue to give police the power to decide when to set up their Temporary Beat Locations outside liquor stores as needed (e.g. on big footy carnival weekends), and the resources to do it properly (i.e. able to cover all the outlets without neglecting other duties such as youth liaison and traffic patrols).
    Plus I would negotiate an accord with retailers to achieve a higher minimum price for cheap wines, to make them no cheaper than VB for a standard drink (i.e. an equivalent amount of pure alcohol); make at least one day each week free from sales of take-away alcohol; and reduce the number of licenced take-away outlets where possible.

    View Comment
  3. Bronte Zadow
    Posted November 8, 2014 at 6:48 am

    No. All I am trying to say is that anyone on welfare benefits excluding veterans affairs, as they they have done their duty for their country, widows pension or disability penson.
    I am speaking about unemployment benefits. These people should get their priorities right.
    Benefits were introduced to assist with neccessities of life such as food, medical, housing, clothing etc not on luxuries.
    Alcohol and smokes are not considered necessities!
    Yes, I do think that everyone should show ID at the bottle shops, not just people on welfare.
    As they say, there is plenty of work to be had in AS. Get a job.
    My challenge to Bob is, how would you tackle this alcohol problem in this town? It’s been like this for a long time, and the reason nobody wants to fix it, is because jobs would then be lost. It can easily be fixed.

    View Comment
  4. Bob Durnan
    Posted November 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Bronte (Bronte Zadow, Posted November 6, 2014 at 7:52 pm): Do you mean then that all the disabled, widowed, aged, sick and war veterans who receive income from the government should be included in your ban on access to alcohol or cigarettes? This is, all recipients of government welfare payments?
    Should everybody have to show photo ID at the point of sale proving that they are not on any benefits?
    And how are the check-out workers going to know if there isn’t a computerised photo ID checking system to say that somebody is entitled to purchase tobacco or alcohol?

    View Comment
  5. Bronte Zadow
    Posted November 6, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    I think that any one on welfare should not have access to alcohol or cigarettes. They are a luxury and you do not need them to substain life. If people want these things they need to work. As for fining these people it is no big deal because most of the money is social security money. It will not hurt for they will get more next week. As for the outstanding fines in the NT, where is the law?

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*