Law change could put more strain on rehabs

More drug and alcohol addicts could be forced into treatment programmes as the result of a recent law change, which has raised questions about whether rehabilitation centres will be able to cope.

The Substance Addiction Act became law last week. It simplifies the process for police, health services and loved ones to force those locked in a cycle of substance abuse into compulsory treatment.

But Wellington addiction clinician Roger Brooking said it was unclear whether the health sector could cope with a spike in rehab patients given there were only four approved centres across the country, and those centres were already full.

‘‘If somebody tried to get someone treated under that act now, I have no idea where they would go.’’

The new law allows any third party to apply for a person to have compulsory treatment, but it must be signed off by an approved specialist. The law specifies addicts can only be held up to 16 weeks.

It replaces the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act (1966), which contained provisions for compulsory treatment. But because addicts could be held for six months under the old law, the option was rarely exercised because it was at odds with the Bill of Rights.

Dr Vanessa Caldwell, from the National Committee for Addiction Treatment and addictions workforce agency Matua Raki, said more addicts would likely end up getting treatment under the new law. But whether more beds would be found at treatment centres was not entirely clear, ‘‘but DHBs have been planning to meet that need’’.

About 100 addicts are already detained in compulsory treatment. There are four approved centres – in Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Christchurch – but only two are accepting new patients, Caldwell said.

Patients detained under the new act would not be locked up, she said. ‘‘When we talk about ‘detained’ it means they’re there when they don’t want to be.’’

In 2015, Christchurch woman Louise Litchfield spoke of her two failed attempts to get help for her 28-year-old daughter’s methamphetamine and codeine-based drug addiction under the 1966 act. A judge declined her request both times, as her daughter successfully defended herself.

Litchfield gave up a third time. ‘‘One judge told me I was trying to take away my daughter’s freedom and I was offending the Human Rights Act.’’

Civil liberties lawyer Michael Bott said involuntary treatment should be used as a last resort in cases where voluntary methods had failed.

‘‘Chemical addictions are huge and powerful and corrupt someone’s rational thinking.’’

But he believed a chronic underfunding of alcohol and drug treatment programmes was also a problem that needed addressing, as many failed to address the root causes.