Page 2777 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: You are wrong. That is simply not true; nor was there any horse-trading.
MR BERRY: I ask you: The Liberals - - -
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is talking in terms of horse-trading in what the committee did and did not do, obviously not having read the full report that was tabled. He is impugning the reputation of members, and I ask him to withdraw that.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Moore, I think you are drawing a fairly long bow. Perhaps later you would like to make a personal explanation under standing order 47. I will not uphold that point of order. I call Mr Berry.
Mr Moore: Just be accurate and truthful for a change.
Mr Lamont: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The imputation there is quite improper and should be withdrawn.
MR BERRY: In order that Mr Moore is not offended any more, let me say that I have no doubt that there has been some negotiation between some parties on the committee to come to an agreed outcome. Some people would call that horse-trading. Another interesting thing I should dwell on for a moment is the Liberals' devout commitment to opposition to changes in the marijuana laws in the ACT. That is kids' stuff compared to methadone, and here they are talking about an expansion.
It raises the question, I suppose, of whether or not it can be sold in a pharmacy. The interstate experience of pharmacy distribution suggests that clients may develop problems which are sometimes not identified early enough to prevent a dangerous situation arising. These problems may threaten the health and even the lives of those involved. Busy pharmacies, which are by nature profit seeking - and that is fair enough - do not have the time to identify complications as they occur and therefore miss the opportunity to take immediate remedial action. The Government proposal will ensure that clients' needs are always met.
I remind my parliamentary colleagues that in the ACT we are in a unique position - if they have not noticed. Because of its size and its being a city-state, the ACT is able to provide a government service of high quality. This is a luxury position, not a fallback position, and it is one we want to exploit. Other States are forced by their geographical size, as has been mentioned, to rely on the private sector to provide methadone and they encounter major difficulties in the monitoring and regulatory roles they undertake in attempting to prevent social disturbances and increased risk of death through overdose and black market diversion. Private sector expansion, as proposed by Mrs Carnell, does not offer the general community protection from these serious problems, nor does it provide a safe environment that will enable clients to get on with their lives.
The second major advantage of the Government's proposal is increased access that is affordable. As you know, Madam Speaker, the Government proposes an absolute minimum charge on clients seeking methadone treatment. Mrs Carnell says that they will all be charged. They will not all be charged. Mr Moore says that they will all be charged. He knows that they are not all going to be charged.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .