Page 2922 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
argue that it has been the most successful approach in the world in dealing with the spread of HIV and the problems associated with drugs in our community. It is my contention that the harm minimisation approach could in fact be extended by providing, in a controlled fashion, heroin to some dependent users to try to assess whether that method decreases or minimises harm or whether it actually increases harm as some observers say it will. But let us find out whether it will or whether it will not.
I draw attention to the fact that Professor Duncan Chappell of the Australian Institute of Criminology is with us today, and welcome him to the Assembly. In responding to and commenting on the trial proposal, the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology, suggested a four-stage procedure: An assessment in the first place, a feasibility study, a pilot trial, and then a trial. The term "assessment" is my term, and it applies, basically, to the work that is done in these two volumes. It is very important to realise that that assessment was, in effect, federally funded, although at the request of this committee. In light of the number of people who were working on that, it would not be out of order to suggest that a cost of some $30,000 was entailed in doing that assessment, and that is a contribution of some $30,000 by the Federal Government towards the inquiry at this stage.
Speaking of the Federal Government, it is important, I believe, that Federal involvement be part and parcel of any trial of this nature. In fact, this report draws attention to the fact that this study certainly could not go ahead without Federal involvement and the cooperation of other States. What we have embarked upon here is something that concerns all States and the Federal Government, and therefore should require the involvement of the Federal Government.
There is a difference of opinion on this small matter between Mrs Nolan and me, and that is expressed in her additional comments. She believes that the Federal Government should provide the $60,000 it would cost to proceed with the feasibility study. I believe that it is appropriate for the ACT to approach the Federal and State governments about funding after they know whether or not such a study is feasible. (Extension of time granted) However, I have made a commitment that at my meeting, as chairman of this committee, with the Deputy Prime Minister, I will certainly request that the Federal Government be prepared to come up with some funds to alleviate the problems of the ACT as far as funding goes. That meeting will be in early September.
It would be inappropriate for us to approach the Federal Government and the States with a half-baked idea and, at this stage, that is where we are at. It is an idea; it is an hypothesis. It has been tested; it has been assessed, and these two academic bodies of international reputation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .