Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The title of this report The winnable war on drugs: the impact of illicit drug use on families by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services is apt, because I believe that the war on drugs is winnable. The recommendations from this report provide a frame of reference for changing the future direction of how we tackle the challenges of individuals and families as a result of addiction to illicit drugs.

I stand today with a degree of credibility, having worked as a social worker for 25 years in Western Sydney. For 10 of those years, I spent a considerable amount of time visiting prisoners on a voluntary basis. I worked face to face with families and individuals who had this challenge. Over the course of the inquiry, what became evident was that the rhetoric, the language, the communication of many people who are trying to help people get off drugs—‘harm minimisation’ and so on—is setting a bar that does not place value on individuals and families across this nation.

We had a young man by the name of Ryan present to us his story. After a 12-month rehab program and long support by his family—and the broader family of his church—he is now living a healthy lifestyle. He is married, he is working and he has a great future ahead of him. But he told us about the number of times that he had tried to access services—hospital, detox or rehab—and time and time again he was told: ‘Methadone is an option. This is an option. Try this.’ He was basically told, ‘This is not something that you’re going to break.’ We need to recognise that people actually have a future and there is hope for every individual and family. No-one ought to be put on the scrap heap. No-one ought to be told that there is no way for you to become free of your addiction and develop a healthy lifestyle and a healthy future, where you can work, have a family and enjoy all the benefits that most of us take for granted.

I want to focus on a couple of the recommendations, starting with recommendation 2. I think a longitudinal study is definitely overdue, particularly focusing on the comparisons of outcomes for alternatives to methadone, including buprenorphine, naltrexone and supervised detoxification and withdrawal, with regard to which options are in the best interests of the child.

When this inquiry was beginning, I had the opportunity to speak to some policemen who work in my local community. One of them, a homicide detective, brought to me a story of a baby that had died as a result of drugs—and it was not the first incident that I had had related to me. That four-month-old baby did not make the choice to ingest those drugs itself. A four-month-old baby cannot do that. An adult, a parent, gave that child the drugs. That baby is dead. Its future, its potential, is completely removed off this planet. That is the most important thing: our children. What are we going to do? Are we going to continue to relegate our children to this lack of future?

Recommendation 3 focuses on the need for the Minister for Health and Ageing to disallow the provision of takeaway methadone through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for drug users who are parents and have children living in their household. I heartily agree with that. It needs to happen as soon as possible. We need to save our children. We need to give them an opportunity for a future.

Recommendation 4 focuses on the Department of Health and Ageing, as part of the next funding round for the Non-Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program, giving urgent priority funding for residential treatment services to provide for children to live with their mothers. I hear from so many single mothers that have challenges fighting addiction to drugs. They desire to come off drugs and there are very few places available. In fact, in Sydney there is only one place, Jarrah House, and the waiting list is very long. I may have a single mum in my office or be visiting them, and I ring Jarrah House and it takes months to get them in. In many cases when that person has come in, they want help, they are ready to do something there and then, and that is when they need the help. The help needs to be available at that point in time.

Many of the recommendations here focus on the importance of a one-stop shop. I think there should be an integrated service, where people not only come and ask for help but then get the detox. There are not enough detox places. We need to have sufficient places. From the detox, people need to be linked directly into rehab. Right now it is just a battle for people to get any kind of help when they want help. It is just not good enough.

Recommendation 6 says that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs should include in the legislative instrument covering the implementations of the income management provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act requirements that the child protection authorities must notify Centrelink when a child protection substantiation detects any illicit drug use by a parent and that this notification shall activate the income management regime provisions.

I think this is critical. While I have a great deal of compassion for many parents who are struggling to get off drugs, I think it is not good that their income support is used to supply their habit and the child is left without food or a roof over their head. I think it is important that we make sure that the child and their needs are a No. 1 priority.

Recommendation 8 includes the following:

The Commonwealth Government develop and bring to the Council of Australian Governments a national illicit drug policy that:

• replaces the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a focus on harm prevention and treatment that has the aim of achieving permanent drug-free status for individuals with the goal of enabling drug users to be drug free;

It is about setting goals for the best possible future. That has to be the goal of every funding contribution we make. The goal has to be for them to be drug free, not drug dependent for years. Recommendation 10 is to:

• amend the National Pharmacotherapy Policy for People Dependent on Opioids to specify that the primary objective of pharmacotherapy treatment is to end an individual’s opioid use; and
• renegotiate funding arrangements for methadone maintenance programs to require the states and territories to commit sufficient funding to provide comprehensive support services to meet the revised National Pharmacotherapy Policy for People Dependent on Opioids objective.

While for some methadone is a form of treatment that helps them to maintain their lifestyle and then be able to step off drugs, for many that is not the case: after a decade or, in some instances, two decades or longer, they are still taking the same high dose of methadone: 110 millilitres. I have had so many people like that in my office over the years and there has been no sign of reduction. Having talked to their treatment supervisor or to the clinic, I have noted there is no plan in place for that individual to actually reduce their dose. While they are on methadone, often they engage in use of other illicit drugs and this further erodes not just their health but the health and lifestyle of their family and the safety of their children in many instances. So I think it is absolutely critical that we focus on encouraging, where there are methadone programs, those programs that actually focus on reducing a person’s dependence on the drug and providing them with those additional services and support, including those from their family, so that they can reach the goal of a drug-free lifestyle.

Looking at further recommendations, recommendation 22 focuses again on strengthening families through treatment:

The Department of Health and Ageing include, as part of the next round of illicit drug treatment funding agreements, requirements that:

• treatment organisations collect and report data on their success rate in making individuals drug free after they have completed their initial treatment; and
• give priority to funding those treatment approaches that demonstrate their success in making individuals drug free.

I acknowledge here that, for many people who have managed to secure that drug-free lifestyle and have to fight and work for it, it takes great determination and an incredible amount of support and resources. For many of those people it has required more than one attempt. The first attempt does not always work, but I think there needs to be some measure to ensure that, through the programs that are supported and funded, that is their goal.

Finally, I would like to make a comment about recommendation 5. Having worked in the child protection area for a number of years, I think the statement needs to be made that the state is not the better parent. In many instances, permanent care orders are not effective. With permanent care orders, the parent can take the state department or the foster family back to court, and time and time again the child gets moved in and out of care, from a stable family environment back to their parent and back to the state. If you talk to any foster care body, whether it be a state or non-government organisation, you will find there are not enough foster care placements available for all the children who are impacted by their parent’s use of illicit drugs. I think that the option of adoption needs to be carefully looked at. Obviously, we need to be certain, as much as possible—as much as anybody can be certain—that the parent will not be able to provide a long-term, safe, secure, healthy environment for their child and that it is in the best interests of the child that an adoption be pursued. That is a good recommendation that focuses on the child.

Every individual and family can live free of the impacts of illicit drug use. These recommendations provide an opportunity for us to set a framework for the future that will improve the chances for individuals and families to achieve that outcome of a drug-free lifestyle. If even some of these recommendations are implemented, it will head in the right direction. We cannot sit by. After all my experience, I think we cannot remain silent. Families, individuals and children do deserve much better. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.

See this speech in context