Drug Rehabilitation Centres

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:48): Drug rehabilitation centres play an important role in treating drug addiction and reducing harm in society. As members would be well aware, these facilities can provide a great deal of assistance when families and individuals need them most, in particular counselling, group therapy, withdrawal management or detoxification (as it is sometimes called), and importantly, an education process, which allows those affected to understand their addiction and in many cases prevents them from falling into further addictive behaviour.

In some instances, drug rehab centres may also provide residential treatment. In fact, I have visited a number personally where I have seen the way they are set up and, in my experience, these are some of the most successful of their kind, in addition to non-residential treatment programs. They are, though, quite costly. Residential treatment is at times necessary to manage addictions, but as I say it can be very costly.

In the current ice epidemic, as it has been labelled, it is very important that drug rehabilitation facilities are well resourced and accessible to all. However, in reality, these facilities are not accessible due to the very high cost that is normally associated with them, limited availability and scarce funding. Those who wish to receive immediate treatment for their addiction face a large bill, up to $30,000 for a place in a private facility, or face waiting up to six months before a public or charity run facility can provide residential treatment.

As an example, according to information online, Visible Recovery in Adelaide has the capacity to house up to 10 residents at a time, at a cost of $2,500 per week, with residential treatment programs ranging from one month to one year. Visible Recovery hopes to raise funds to build a bigger not-for-profit centre in Lockleys, and we wish them well.

As you would appreciate, $10,000 is a very significant amount of money, particularly to those who are physically and financially drained from insidious illicit drugs, such as methamphetamines or ice. The likelihood of an ice user coming up with $10,000 to go into rehabilitation is slim, at best, unless they have external support. All too often I come across stories of addicts mortgaging their homes, receiving loans from parents, grandparents or other family members, and resorting to rehabilitation facilities and programs overseas.

The exorbitant fees associated with local private facilities is not an indictment on the providers, but rather represents a lack of government funding and the great demand for rehabilitation facilities and services. I am not often in this place arguing for more government funding for various things, it is something that I resist, but in this case I think a substantial increase in government funding is probably the only way forward.

Not that long ago, South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services' executive officer, Andris Banders, criticised the closure of three rehab centres in Adelaide due to the cut in funding from the government. More recently, reports surfaced which claimed that the $300 million in federal government funding for treatment of ice addiction is not reaching the front lines of drug rehab centres. This is despite some facilities reporting a 125 per cent increase in admissions for ice addiction. Unfortunately, the lack of funding and resources will result in the closure of beds and, ultimately, the closure of drug rehab centres. No-one wins.

This is simply unacceptable. Generally, there is a very small window of opportunity where addicts are in the right frame of mind and actually willing to rehabilitate. Without accessible drug treatment at that particular time, however, many addicts may simply decide to continue using the substances that got them into trouble in the first place. Waiting six months for a place in rehab is not an acceptable circumstance at this time. Six months for an addict can literally mean life or death in some cases.

Recently, the government rejected a bill by the member for Bragg in the other place which explored the idea of mandatory rehabilitation for those under 18, something which Family First supports. Due to the current shortage in existing treatment facilities, supporting the bill and mandatory rehab for minors would likely require a purpose-built rehab centre funded and managed by the government. It is, however, disappointing that this bill has not progressed any further.

Family First encourages the government to invest more in rehab—federal and state, I should point out—explore innovative ideas to address drug dependency and strongly lobby the federal government for a decent portion of the $300 million funding required for the facility I have just outlined. We call on the government to provide further resources to drug rehabilitation services and particularly to those on the front lines.

Strict penalties set by the legislature, enforced by the police, and adequate sentencing by the judiciary is only part of the answer. Rehabilitation is equally important and must not be neglected in the ever evolving war against drugs. The federal government has a significant role to play here, as does the state government. This problem has been allowed to go on for way too long.