Drug Diversion Program Falls Short: Thousands Miss Out on Court Alternatives
New South Wales’s approach to minor drug possession has come under fire, with startling statistics revealing that a significant majority of eligible individuals are being bypassed for court diversion programs. Despite the introduction of the Early Drug Diversion Initiative, designed to offer alternatives to the traditional justice system for low-level drug offences, the program is failing to reach its intended beneficiaries. Analysis of crime statistics between February 2024 and March 2025 paints a grim picture: out of nearly 12,000 relevant drug incidents, a mere nine per cent resulted in a person being diverted from court.
The issue runs deeper than just low overall diversion rates. When examining those who were eligible for the program, the numbers become even more concerning. Approximately only a quarter of individuals flagged as eligible actually received the diversion. This means a substantial number of people, who by definition met the criteria for an alternative to court, are still being processed through the criminal justice system.
Critics argue that the program’s design, coupled with how it’s being implemented by police, is fundamentally flawed. The discretion afforded to police officers is seen as a major stumbling block, undermining the program’s core intent and, in many cases, exacerbating existing disadvantages for vulnerable communities.
Disparities Emerge in Diversion Access
The data highlights significant disparities in how the diversion program is applied, particularly concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A stark comparison shows that for every 11 Aboriginal individuals eligible for diversion, 10 were instead sent to court. In contrast, only two out of every three non-Aboriginal eligible individuals faced court proceedings.
For those who are diverted, the typical outcome is a Criminal Infringement Notice (CIN). A CIN typically requires an individual to complete a telehealth intervention for their drug use or pay a $400 fine. This offers a pathway away from a criminal record, but the statistics suggest it’s a pathway not being offered equitably.
The Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) has voiced strong concerns, interpreting the data as evidence of systemic discrimination within the police force. Sharif Deen, acting chief executive of the ALS, stated that the program is not serving First Nations people effectively. “Even when police have the option to divert an Aboriginal person away from court, they are choosing to charge them and force them to face criminal punishment,” Deen explained. “Whenever police have the power to decide who can access alternatives to court and avoid criminal charges, we see worse outcomes for our people.”
Socioeconomic Factors and Drug Type Influence Diversion
Beyond racial disparities, socioeconomic factors also appear to play a role in who accesses diversion. Wealthier individuals received a disproportionately high percentage of CINs – 46 per cent – despite making up only a quarter of those eligible for the program. This suggests that financial means may indirectly influence the application of diversion, or that certain demographics are more likely to be engaged with in a way that leads to diversion.
The type of drug involved also seems to be a significant factor in diversion outcomes. Almost all individuals caught with MDMA or other substances at music festivals were diverted. Similarly, half of those found with cocaine also received diversion. However, the data reveals a stark contrast for users of methamphetamine, commonly known as “ice,” with only 8.5 per cent of those individuals being diverted for treatment.
Health-Focused Intent vs. On-the-Ground Reality
When the Early Drug Diversion Initiative was introduced in October 2023, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park emphasised its basis in expert evidence and recommendations from the state’s ice inquiry. He articulated a vision where drug use and dependence are treated as health issues, better addressed through health support rather than the criminal justice system. “Drug use and dependence are very much health issues and ones that are far better addressed through health support outside the courts and criminal justice systems,” Park had stated.
However, the recent statistics cast doubt on this vision being realised in practice. Mr Deen from the ALS believes the government has been slow to address the issue of police discretion, particularly concerning Indigenous individuals. Alice Salomon, advocacy head for Uniting’s NSW/ACT branch, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that policing decisions are being influenced by factors such as the individual’s postcode and the type of drug involved. “The scheme’s poor design, along with police culture, is undermining the intent behind diversion,” Salomon commented. “With non-diverted cases flowing into the courts, the report identified significant potential savings for the taxpayers of NSW if the scheme was better utilised.”
Eligibility Criteria for Diversion
To be eligible for the drug diversion program in NSW, individuals generally must meet several criteria, including:
- Possessing a small quantity of non-cannabis drugs.
- Having no prior convictions for serious drug offences.
- Meeting other specific criteria outlined by the program.
The introduction of drug checking services at music festivals in NSW in 2025 is a separate initiative aimed at harm reduction within specific event contexts. While it aligns with a broader public health approach to drug use, it remains distinct from the broader court diversion program for possession offences. The current data suggests that the promise of a health-led approach to minor drug possession is not yet being fully delivered across the state.
