Page 2790 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.40): Mr Humphries's smart alec outburst ignores the facts in other places. He should have a look at the law as it applies in New South Wales in relation to these matters. Under this open slather proposal by Michael Moore it is possible for a treatment centre to treat any number of people who have a difficulty with a drug of dependence and it can be arranged for that to occur in any shopping centre in the ACT, irrespective of its location having regard to the well-recognised problems that sometimes go with people who are in these unfortunate circumstances. It was fair enough in New South Wales for a law to be passed in relation to it; it is fair enough in the ACT for the Board of Health to take into consideration the size and location of a proposed treatment centre, having regard to the residential amenity of nearby residents. It is no more or less than that.
It will be said that planning powers can take care of it in a suburb, and that is true, undoubtedly; but in relation to other parts it is something that ought to be considered in the mechanism for approval, were it to be given, by the Board of Health in terms of other amendments which are contained in this package of amendments. Of course, those amendments may not gain the support of members in this place. What I think people are most upset about here is that they have been caught on the hop. They came out with a flawed report which provides for open slather, the risk of double dosing, the risk of leakage into the black market, and all those sorts of things. It is all because they have been caught out with a faulty report. This is a faulty report. Its worst defects could cause some damage in the community, and the worst aspects are beginning to show through already.
Mr Moore has opposed the determination of a maximum amount that may be charged for the supply and administration of methadone at a treatment centre. Mr Moore is resisting attempts by this Government to contain the cost of methadone to people who require it. What deals have been done here? He is handing over the right to set a fee to a pharmacist in any small business and that person can determine that fee by any means they think are appropriate. That is an outrageous position in which to put people you claim are socially disadvantaged. Essentially, what he is doing is handing over the costing of this to the private sector. Inevitably, the clients of the system will lose.
In relation to the location of existing treatment centres, Michael Moore opposes that. He is prepared to allow anybody in the ACT to set up a treatment centre and compete, without regard to the community or the requirements of the community, and without regard to the number of persons likely to be referred to or to use the proposed treatment centre. He does not want to pay any attention to that. All he is interested in is spitting at a set of logical amendments which have been put forward by the Government.
I come to the "proximity to residential premises" which Mr Humphries railed against, notwithstanding the circumstances which may well apply. We are talking about the potential of several hundred people using a particular treatment centre, which may, in fact, affect the residential amenity in the community, and the board is entitled to consider that when approving. This is the best part of Michael Moore's absent-mindedness. We seek to include the words:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .