Over the years, the Northern Territory has gained a reputation for being the alcohol capital of the country, with alcohol-related deaths in the Top End more than three times the national average, and the cost of dealing with alcohol-related crime averaging $91.4m per year.
Laws passed by the Northern Territory government in mid-2013 aimed to tackle the problem by targeting alcohol abusers deemed to be at risk to themselves and others.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act now requires persons who have been taken into police protective custody three or more times over the course of two months to be referred to an alcohol rehabilitation centre or treatment program to overcome their addiction and develop skills to integrate them back into the community.
However, the controversial laws came under fire this week after it was reported that an Aboriginal woman aged in her 40s died whilst being treated at an alcohol rehabilitation centre as part of the program.
It is understood that the woman died some weeks ago, however her death was only made public last week after her family voiced their concerns.
The woman’s family and legal representatives have called for a review of the mandatory treatment scheme and for better procedures for reporting deaths in treatment facilities.
How does it work?
Under Northern Territory law, police have the power to take a person into protective custody when they are intoxicated and at risk of committing an offence or causing harm to themselves or another person.
Persons taken into protective custody are usually held in a police cell until they have sobered up – and whilst they are in protective custody, they are not able to be questioned by the police.
The new laws require adults who are taken into protective custody three or more times within two months for being publically intoxicated to undergo treatment to address their alcohol related issues.
Controversially, the laws are not intended to target offenders who commit criminal offences such as assaults while under the influence of alcohol – rather they are simply aimed at “chronic drinkers who are publically intoxicated.”
Rather, persons who commit criminal offences which whilst intoxicated for which the maximum penalty is a period of imprisonment will be dealt with through the court system as per usual.
Persons who are detained are then taken to an “assessment facility,” where they must be assessed within 96 hours of admission.
The assessment is conducted by a clinician and determines whether or not mandatory alcohol treatment is suitable for that person – for example, if the person is mentally ill, they may be deemed unsuitable for the program.
If a person is considered to be suitable for the program, they will be referred to the Alcohol Mandatory Tribunal.
The Tribunal is composed of lawyers, health professionals and other community service providers. It decides the best way of dealing with that person’s alcohol addiction. Generally, it can make one of three orders:
- Mandatory treatment order: This requires the person to undergo treatment from a “community treatment provider” for up to three months. The person will not be required to be detained, however they will be banned from buying or consuming alcohol. The order may carry additional conditions depending on that person’s personal circumstances – for example, they may be required to undergo regular alcohol testing, may be banned from entering certain areas, or may be ordered to live at a particular location.
- Mandatory residential treatment order: This requires the person to be admitted and detained at a “specified treatment centre,” which may include rehabilitation centres. They are also obliged to participate in treatment at the centre and refrain from buying, possessing or consuming alcohol.
- Income management order: This involves a person who receives welfare payments from Centrelink to have these payments managed for a period of up to 12 months. The law says that if a mandatory treatment order is made, an income management order must also be made if that person is receiving welfare payments.
After the person completes the treatment program, they will be released back into the community with an aftercare plan developed by the Department of Health, which aims to support the person in reintegrating back into society.
What’s the problem?
Since the laws were implemented last year, they have drawn widespread criticism, particularly from Indigenous rights advocates, who believe that they will disproportionately target Indigenous persons.
It is estimated that 99% of persons assessed under the scheme are Indigenous, with many of these persons suffering from serious health issues, as well as entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage.
These people are often in a vulnerable position when they are picked up for public intoxication, and many experts have raised doubts about their ability to give consent or understand the extent of orders made against them.
Further, while disadvantaged persons can often seek legal representation when they come before a court, legal representation at tribunal hearings is “not essential” under the law.
Lawyers play an important role in the justice system by ensuring that people understand tribunal processes and by protecting the interests of vulnerable people.
While persons brought before the tribunal may elect to be represented by a lawyer, they are often unable to afford one. It is therefore questionable whether natural justice is afforded to these persons.
Finally, the recent media coverage has raised issues about the ways in which deaths in mandatory treatment facilities are reported and dealt with.
Under the law, deaths which occur while a person is under police custody or in prison are subject to intensive investigation and review.
These deaths are often also reported in the media to promote transparency and accountability.
However, deaths in mandatory rehabilitation centres are treated as “deaths in care” rather than “deaths in custody.”
This means that press releases will not usually be made about a person’s death within an alcohol treatment facility.
Accordingly, some have argued that the failure of the rehabilitation centre to inform the public about the recent death was a cover-up as to what happens within the program.
Further, there have been doubts raised about the effectiveness of the program, with many suggesting that there has been little evidence provided about the success of mandatory treatment and whether people are successful in overcoming alcohol addiction as a result of the program.
This is particularly concerning given the potential for mandatory treatment to impinge upon a person’s civil liberties and require them to be detained, often for several months, despite not having committed a serious criminal offence.
While much needs to be done to tackle alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory, the failings of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act suggest that a more constructive and civil approach is required.
