Page 2778 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has been made very clear that there will be a safety net for people who cannot afford it. The people who will visit the safety net are more likely to be in the initial stages, and that cost will be borne by the public sector. In our proposal, that would be offset by the collection of funds at the other end, where more stable clients are able to access the public provision of these services.
The pharmacy industry has not volunteered to do this for nothing. In fact, in New South Wales they set a charge significantly higher than is proposed here in the ACT. Mrs Carnell would not disagree with that. I think about $35 a week has been set. It is up to individual pharmacies to charge what they like, depending on the look of the person as they come through the door. A charge will not be introduced until criteria for waiving the fee under certain circumstances are developed in consultation with certain community and client groups. Members opposite should listen to that. The charging scheme which currently applies to government facilities is consistent with social justice principles and ensures that clients have access to methadone, regardless of their capacity to pay.
Private sector expansion exposes a vulnerable group in society not only to adverse social and health consequences but also to the possibility of financial exploitation. The effect of Mrs Carnell's proposal will be to set up a two-tier system between those who can afford the price of private sector access and those who cannot. The Government strongly believes that health care is a right and not a privilege and clients should not have to pay for the opportunity to get on with their lives.
The third advantage of the Government option is that the money required for expansion will be devoted entirely to the treatment needs of clients and will not be diverted to the development and monitoring of standards in the private sector. This will ensure a high standard of service to the client, whereas Mrs Carnell's proposal requires only that pharmacists provide elementary operational details before their premises become eligible as approved treatment centres. This is clearly an inadequate response to the need to provide a therapeutically safe environment for clients to receive treatment and highlights Mrs Carnell's misunderstanding of the treatment program. That program is not about only the dispensing of methadone to a client but should provide a holistic approach to clients requiring maintenance and reduction.
My Government is committed to the broader holistic approach. The Government option balances the costs of providing a high standard of care with the need for greater access at a price everyone can afford. This Bill is a humane alternative to private sector expansion, with none of the drawbacks and many advantages. I believe that the Government has acted quickly and responsibly to address the urgent need to provide an expanded methadone service to those who present for treatment in the ACT. The proposed Bill to expand services through government facilities will do much to reduce the grave social, economic and legal consequences of illicit drug abuse.
Much was said by opposition members about the Government's decision to adopt the public approach. It was an appropriate course, otherwise we would have been left with a decision that for the rest of our lives would have been wrong. Madam Speaker, it was a prudent decision aimed at ensuring quality care to the clients who will use the system which is proposed. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, the proposal to expand the methadone distribution through pharmacies is opposed for the following reasons. The proposal is related to the commercial interests of pharmacies and - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .