Page 2761 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Despite the Government's comments about control, Mr Berry is interested in ensuring very close control over people who are on the methadone program. That is in direct contravention of the very thing that I mentioned both in the preface to the report and in my tabling speech. I referred to modern thinking on health, and in particular to the Ottawa charter of 1986 - which I presume, from the way Mr Berry acts and performs, he has not read. Every indication we have is that he has not read it. (Extension of time granted) It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that if Mr Berry read the Ottawa charter, if he really understood improving health for all, then he would apply the principles of the charter, which are about moving back from control and about allowing people to make their own decisions. That is a position to which we move step by step. We have pointed out a very appropriate way of dealing with it and we have dealt with each of the issues in our report.
The response we have had from Mr Berry comprises two major parts. The first is a reaction to the notion of pharmacies, which Mr Humphries has dealt with quite appropriately, and a reaction to Mrs Carnell. The other seems to be a great deal of worry about losing control. I wonder how much of that comes from Mr Berry and how much comes from his bureaucrats. That is what it is: It is a question of control. In your own words, Mr Berry, the response you tabled states:
The pressures of providing methadone treatment are frequently manifested as issues of control.
If we had a system - - -
Mr Berry: No, no.
MR MOORE: They are your own words. Do not say, "No, no". You should have read the document before you tabled it. The point is, Madam Speaker, that it is a question of control. That is what Mr Berry is about here. He is not prepared to accept his original stance of a little over a year ago when, as Minister, he announced his intention of providing methadone to community pharmacies as appropriate. This raises an important question, Madam Speaker. It is an issue that I hope will be dealt with further in the Estimates Committee. A year ago, in September 1991, it was said:
The introduction of amendments to the legislation will involve some new costs in its introduction and implementation.
We accept that; it does with all legislation. The statement continued:
The ACT already conducts inspections of pharmacies as part of other responsibilities, the cost is assessed as being minimal.
I talked earlier about costs and the original statement. It went on:
This can be done within existing budget ...
Yet this same Minister can bring his people before the Estimates Committee and tell us that it is going to cost us over $100,000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .