Page 2923 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have said, "Yes, it is an idea; it is appropriate and worthwhile to check to see whether or not it is feasible". It would be entirely inappropriate for the ACT to proceed with any stage beyond the feasibility study without the support, including the full financial support, of the Federal Government. I believe that that support should be sought at that stage, and part of the feasibility study should be to determine whether, in fact, we can gain that support.
One issue that has been raised on many occasions is the notion that this trial is in some way to provide free heroin - and, of course, that is precisely true. In dealing with free heroin the national centre said, in volume 2 at page 170 of its report, "No payment should be required for participation in the trial". We must remember that we are talking about an academic trial, not about a policy of providing free heroin. The report said:
The results of the survey undertaken as part of this feasibility study showed that there is a high level of support for charging for trial drugs ... There are also in principle reasons why participants should pay for the drugs.
Everybody was aware of that. They go on to explain, however, that the difficulties associated with payment may, in fact, put an actual trial in jeopardy. So, the notion of free heroin has nothing to do with a policy concept; it has simply to do with the difficulties in running a trial. I think that the notion of providing free heroin for such a trial has been very much blown out of proportion. It is perfectly normal to provide participants in trials with the necessary materials to make the trial work.
It is very important for me to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard and so long on this committee. It is a very difficult inquiry, not only in terms of the amount of information that we have to deal with but also in terms of the style of lobbying that occurs and the political pressures that are brought to bear. I particularly thank the deputy chairperson, Robyn Nolan, Bill Wood for his participation on this committee prior to his becoming a Minister, and, since that time, Ellnor Grassby. I thank Ron Owens, the secretary of this committee, who has been untiring in his work, and absolutely brilliant, as far as I am concerned, in his cooperativeness and willingness to get on with the job.
The thanks of the whole committee, of course, must be extended particularly to Professor Douglas and Professor Duncan Chappell - who, as I pointed out, was here - for their contribution to this particular matter. Their contribution stands on its own. It puts the lie to those cynics who would argue that academics have an easy life. The quality of the work and the timeframe within which it was done are absolutely extraordinary. Much of the credit for that work goes particularly to Dr Gabriele Bammer and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .