Human rights implications in Substance Addiction Bill – HRC
The Human Rights Commission supports the broad intent of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill but says changes are needed to address significant human rights implications.
“We support the bill’s broad intent but appropriate safeguards need to be put in place,” said Chief Legal Advisor Janet Anderson Bidois.
“The compulsory assessment and treatment frameworks should only limit human rights and freedoms to the minimum extent possible: A proportionate approach is required.”
“Some aspects of the Bill seem to go too far and further safeguards are required in order to get the right balance.”
The way in which the legislation is implemented in practice is also important.
“This will depend to a large degree on the availability of suitable funding, treatment centres and experienced staff,” said Ms Anderson Bidois.
“Inadequate resourcing in this area will affect the potential effectiveness of the legislation and could increase the likelihood of human rights breaches in its application.”
The Human Rights Commission’s submission flagged 10 key areas of concern. These include:
• The possibility that patients could be held in police cells or other inappropriate facilities while awaiting admission to a “treatment centre.”
• The proposed ability for treating staff to check and withhold incoming and outgoing mail and electronic communications and to remove electronic devices.
• Practical concerns about the lack of time frames for dealing with requests for urgent review of decisions around compulsory status and the ability to access legal advice and clinical second opinions
• Technical drafting concerns about the capacity tests and principles of informed consent
• Arbitrary longer detention periods for people who have been diagnosed with a brain injury
I am sincerely comforted that the HRC are taking a close interest in this Bill, however, I am wondering if perhaps there might be a lack of knowledge about treating substance abuse within the HRC.
“The proposed ability for treating staff to check and withhold incoming and outgoing mail and electronic communications and to remove electronic devices. ”
Having the authority to do this will be vital for the success of any program. The potential for a communication to derail rehabilitation is huge. Pressure from family and associates can be enormous, and protecting clients from undue pressure from those who often have supported and encouraged the substance abuse is a necessary part of the therapy. There is nothing wrong with having a temporary “curfew”…at least for the first few weeks.
There aren’t enough treatment facilities to cope with the people that actually want to get clean. I’m worried that unmotivated people will waste resources, take away opportunity, and disrupt treatment for people who do want it.
There are plenty of people now who are just using treatment and drug court as a get out of jail free card.
I would like to see a tiered system perhaps, where compulsory patients were separate from voluntary at least at the start. Also, an increase in funding so as few as possible miss out.