Page 98 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I understand that there has been some work on the methadone program in recent days, to introduce a low intervention program along the lines of Mr Moore's statements, and that a questionnaire has gone out to addicts along those lines. I think that is an important part of a methadone program in the ACT. But without that final stage, without that rehabilitation, without that getting people back into the community in which they live, the whole program falls on its face.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential, if we are going to have a methadone program, and we must, that we expand our numbers so that we can get people onto the program - not in five months or five weeks, but when they really make that earth-shattering decision that they want to get off heroin, that they want to get back into the community, that they want to stop robbing houses to get the money, that they really want to get back on track. We have to be able to take them into our program that day, in fact that hour, when they make their decision. To do that, the low intervention program is essential. Also, we must get stabilised addicts back into the community through the pharmacy program.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.51): One of the things that we must recognise, and recognise very clearly, is that the methadone program is a rehabilitation program and it must be, of necessity, a disciplined rehabilitation program for those who require that sort of discipline. It is all right to say, "Yes, we should make it easier for pharmacists to administer methadone out in the community because that would be better"; but you cannot simply say that without looking at all of the conditions under which the drug would be administered.
The methadone program is not about the supply of methadone to heroin addicts for the fun of it; it is a program that is designed to rehabilitate people, and nobody more than the Labor Party recognises the need to do something about the heroin program. Take, for example, the overwhelming number of crimes committed in the community which are drug related. With better administration of addicts we can, hopefully, move to a situation where there is less crime and less impact on the community as a result of inappropriate substance abuse.
The motion that is before the Assembly is one which seeks to put some pressure on the Government about changes in relation to the methadone program. I have made announcements in relation to that and, as the Liberals would recognise, when I make announcements about things I usually do them. Take as a classic example the way I cleaned up finance in Health. That is a classic example.
Mr Humphries: Ha, ha! Apart from the blow-out.
MR BERRY: Of course, they get twitchy whenever these things come up. No; the Government has indicated that it is going to do something about this matter. I think those of you who have taken a look at the legislation list will find that the Drugs of Dependence Act is mentioned on the legislation program.
Mrs Carnell: Second priority.
MR BERRY: It is mentioned on the list. Of course, we would never be able to see on our legislation program a list that would suit everybody, particularly the Liberal Party. This Government will move to improve the provision of - - -
Mrs Carnell: You announced the pilot program last August.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .