Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 350 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

have voiced the same view: Unless we have support from other governments and from the Federal Government, we cannot go ahead. It is very difficult for this Assembly to make a decision until we know what the situation is outside the ACT. I endorse, for the Assembly's interest, the approach I am considering.

MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (4.06): At the outset of my comments on the report of the heroin pilot task force, I would like to commend the Government on the consultative approach it has taken on a very sensitive issue in our community. I would also like to commend and congratulate Mr Waller, AM, on the way in which he conducted that consultation and on the report he produced arising out of the consultation. It seems to me that the method of community debate and consultation that has occurred here might well be used as a model for further sensitive issues where there are clearly very divided views in the community, and equally strongly held views. I want to make it very clear that I believe that, in arriving at the report, this task has been well done.

I realise that there is still a view around, and no doubt it will be stated today, that even the consideration of a heroin trial is nothing more than pandering to a self-indulgent bunch of law-breakers. I have had that view put to me. I have also heard people question the Government's priorities in even looking at this issue. Indeed, I think there is a great deal to be said on the matter of priorities. Coming from a government that has taken quite dramatic cost-cutting measures in the health arena, including closing health centres, sacking all the salaried doctors, and so on, the priority that is given to this clinical trial of heroin does warrant some examination.

On the other hand, I have also heard the view put forward that we need to pursue the heroin trial because "prohibition does not work". I do not necessarily agree with that view either. I think prohibition, if it is strictly enforced and adequately resourced, probably would work a great deal better than it has so far. But we know that the resources of the police are finite, and we know what a difficult task it would be to monitor and police every single heroin transaction that might occur in the Territory and then deal with those offences through the correctional system. In fact, it would probably involve the entire police and correctional budget of the Territory if that matter were to be pursued 100 per cent. So whilst some people mouth the platitude that prohibition has not worked, my view is that it has not been implemented with total vigour. That is because of policing priorities and because of the finite nature of the resources that are allocated to those priorities, and I understand that perfectly. I do not disagree with those priorities.

As far as my Labor colleagues and I are concerned, throughout the debate on the heroin trial our position has been to provide cautious support for a trial. The caution involved in our support relates to whether this is truly a national trial - that is, we do not want to see the Territory going it alone in this kind of trial - and it relates also to who is going to pay for the trial. I believe that, if it is a national trial and it is surely in the national interest, that ought to be reflected in the funding for this measure. My party's position over some years now has been cautious support for this trial. Respective Labor Ministers for Health, Mr Berry and then Mr Connolly, have supported the idea at national forums - the Health Ministers Conference, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, and so on. If you look at the action that has been taken over quite some years now, you will see that our party's views and actions have been pretty well consistent.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .