Page 2789 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (9.36): Madam Speaker, I was really rather surprised when I read some of the provisions that were included in these amendments coming forward from the Government. In particular, I was interested in the amendment which requires a certain criterion to be established before a place may be registered as a treatment centre. It refers to "the locations of existing treatment centres". That seems to be a measure designed to limit the number of places where people might go to get this service. That is hardly desirable, it seems to me; but, okay, that is what the Government is after.
It then refers to "the number of persons likely to be referred to or to use the proposed treatment centre". The argument there seems to be that, if there is only one addict in a particular suburb who wants to use a particular pharmacist, for example, or a doctor's surgery, that is not a sufficiently large number to justify the addict going to that particular place. Even though the doctor or the pharmacist wants to supply the service, and the addict wants to go there, or needs to go there because it is convenient to his home, you still cannot have a service provided from that place because the Government does not deem that one client is an appropriate number of clients to enable that place to be a treatment centre. It is a silly concept, it seems to me.
The real provision here that takes the cake, Madam Speaker, is the provision in respect of treatment centres, or a treatment centre, that reads "its proximity to residential premises". What is this saying? It is saying, "We do not want these treatment centres, these pharmacists or doctors' surgeries, to be too near residential premises. We do not want the ordinary citizens of Canberra to have to be contaminated by the presence of drug addicts going along for their methadone treatment". Is this the same government, Madam Speaker, that lectured us some weeks ago about our attitude towards government housing in residential suburbs of the ACT? They said, "Oh, you people do not want government housing tenants to be in residential areas". Apparently, you do not want drug addicts to be in residential areas either.
Madam Speaker, where do you think drug addicts in this community live? In trees? In holes in the ground? In the hub-caps of cars? No, they live in residential premises, like you and I. That is where they live. That is exactly why treatment centres - - -
Mrs Grassby: He objects to drug addicts at any other time, but he is not doing it now.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, this person over here with spaghetti coming out of her pocket really does not know what she is talking about. Let us face facts, Madam Speaker; drug addicts in this community have the same rights to be served by facilities provided for their benefit as other people in the community. If you are going to normalise the procedure and you are going to socialise those who are in this position and try to bring them back out of their habit into the normal stream of society, that means that you put the community treatment centres in the community, nowhere else. That is why provisions like this are simply silly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .