Page 2050 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 8 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
particularly those from remote rural areas. The ACT Government operates many facilities all over Canberra to which drug dependents would have ready access and from which suitably qualified and trained staff are able to provide methadone treatment. Most prominent amongst these facilities are health centres.
The Drugs of Dependence Act of 1989 currently limits distribution of methadone from government facilities to certain health institutions used for accommodation, treatment and care of drug dependents, and this excludes health centres. The proposed amendments will enable any government facility to be used as a distribution point for methadone treatment. Initially, health centres in central, northern and southern Canberra are proposed, but location and hours of operation will be tailored as far as possible to client needs. Any service would be provided by suitably qualified staff and subject to the current controls over record keeping and storage - most important features of any program. Only clients who are assessed as stable will be able to have their methadone administered from health centres. I should say that they are the only ones the pharmacy industry are interested in because they are the stable ones who would provide the most profit for pharmacies.
In stark contrast, Mrs Carnell's Bill demonstrates the worst aspects of deregulation, which is supported as a gleaming principle by the Liberal Party. That Bill would require substantial amendment because it lacks proper control.
Mr Humphries: You are desperate to stop Mrs Carnell.
MR BERRY: I am always desperate to stop bad legislation. Mrs Carnell's Bill lacks the proper controls over pharmacies which are necessary to prevent double dosing and diversion into the black market supply. There is no attempt by Mrs Carnell to regulate the way pharmacists would provide services to people who have a drug dependency. It is the "can't be bothered" approach or "only interested in the profit" approach. For example, there will be no obligation on pharmacists to be appropriately trained - - -
Mr Cornwell: Don't worry, you can always raid them.
Mr Humphries: Yes, raid them; that is an idea. That will tighten them up.
MR BERRY: No, I blame Mrs Carnell, and there will be more on that.
There will be no obligation on pharmacists to be appropriately trained in the delivery of service, nor is there mention of the requirement for pharmacists to be part of an overall program. In other words, Mrs Carnell's way is open slather. Notwithstanding that, and I have raised this issue before, Mrs Carnell's Bill should not be before the Assembly as it has been proposed in circumstances where a reasonable person would form the view that Mrs Carnell has a conflict of interest. I know that that is of concern to some members of the Liberal Party. Mrs Carnell is a pharmacy owner, a practising pharmacist, and president of the ACT branch of the Pharmacy Guild - an organisation which, among other things, is committed to advancing the interests of pharmacy owners, of whom Mrs Carnell is one. Mrs Carnell has introduced legislation which is aimed at increasing business for pharmacists. I for one am not going to sit back and allow this Assembly as a whole to be discredited because of the actions of Mrs Carnell. If the Liberals are arrogant enough to believe that it is all right for one of their number to act in a way that may be described as having a conflict of interest, it is up to the Liberal Party to wear the odium of their decision, not this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .