GERALDTON SOBERING UP CENTRE
490. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Minister for Health:
I
refer to parliamentary questions asked by me about the ill-considered closure
of the Geraldton Sobering Up Centre by the McGowan government in the
name of ''funding of election commitments''.
(1) Is it correct
that only three of the remaining nine sobering-up centres in Western Australia
are meeting their contracted targets?
(2) Is it correct
that one sobering-up centre, in Roebourne, has no target at all?
(3) How does the
minister justify closing the Geraldton Sobering Up Centre when it admitted more
people per annum than the three smallest sobering-up centres combined?
(4) If the
minister's claims are to be believed that the Geraldton Sobering Up
Centre was closed due to a failure to meet contracted targets, can the minister
guarantee the future of centres in Derby, Wyndham, Port Hedland, Roebourne,
Carnarvon and Kalgoorlie?
Hon
ALANNA CLOHESY replied:
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. I am advised of the following.
(1) Yes. Of the
nine sobering-up centres currently operating in Western Australia, three
centres achieved the target for the number of admissions per annum in 2017–18
and the other SUCs achieved 95 per cent, 90 per cent, 83 per cent, 57 per cent
and 33 per cent of the target per annum.
(2) Yes. The
service agreement for the Roebourne SUC was varied in 2016 to include two low
medical withdrawal beds. The Mental Health Commission permitted unused SUC beds
to also be utilised for low medical withdrawal and, for this reason, no target
was set for the use of SUC beds. In responding to the local needs of Roebourne,
the Mental Health Commission has negotiated with the provider of the Roebourne
SUC to increase the number of low medical withdrawal beds from two to four
beds. Targets for the sobering-up and low medical withdrawal services will now
be defined and set to reflect the new configuration of beds.
(3) Although
Geraldton SUC met approximately 50 per cent of its target for the number of
admissions, a significant percentage of all admissions were for a small client
group who used the service on most nights
that the centre was open. For the full-year period 1 January 2016 to 31 December
2016, there were 1 447 admissions. During this time, one client had 143
admissions and the top 10 users accounted for 44 per cent of admissions.
The aim of sobering-up services is to reduce the impact of alcohol and drug–related
harm in the community. The contracted model of service is not appropriate as an
alternative for accommodation services.
(4) There are no
plans to close any of the SUCs. The Mental Health Commission will be conducting
a review of all SUCs to determine whether the current model is meeting local
community needs.