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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1111 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The ACT is not the only jurisdiction which has expressed concern about the national illicit drug strategy. Most jurisdictions have expressed concerns that the national illicit drug strategy was developed without consultation with the State and Territory governments and that its major emphasis is on one component of the harm minimisation approach that underpins the national drug strategy. Furthermore, it has been noted that the proposed method of funding allocation potentially undermines jurisdictional tendering processes, it may not be consistent with jurisdictional priorities, and the funding is available only to non-government agencies. While non-government organisations play a crucial role in service delivery, it is crucial that these services be coordinated by State and Territory governments, which are currently the major coordinators of alcohol and drug services at this level.

It appears that the evidence that the Prime Minister used in the formation of this strategy is taken from a report which is more in line with the failed United States prohibitionist strategies than the highly successful Australian harm minimisation approach. Interestingly, the Prime Minister has refused to make this report public. I have written to Dr Wooldridge, asking him to make the evidence available, but he has used the protection of Cabinet-in-confidence to bury that evidence. I call on the Prime Minister to release this report publicly.

Despite considerable reservations about the national illicit drug strategy, I recognise that there is a real need for Commonwealth funding for drug and alcohol services in the ACT. Currently, the ACT receives $352,000 from the Commonwealth for drug and alcohol services, which is far less than the ACT spends in this area. The Commonwealth has recently announced jurisdictional allocation of funding under the national illicit drug strategy, and the Government has been advised that the ACT has been allocated $125,000 per annum over four years to meet gaps in service delivery. This is clearly not enough to meet any of the priorities in service delivery. These priorities are residential rehabilitation service for young people, women detoxification service, residential rehabilitation service for Aboriginal people, and services for people with mental illness and substance abuse problems. Funding at $125,000 per annum, or $500,000 in total, would barely cover operational costs, let alone establishment costs. I have written to the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, MP, asking him to reconsider the ACT's allocation. In particular, I have asked him to recognise the importance of Canberra as a regional centre which takes many clients from New South Wales and Victoria. The ACT Government will be working closely with the non-government sector to assist them in assessing whatever funds are allocated under the national illicit drug strategy.

In announcing the second instalment of the national illicit drug strategy, the Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Australian National Council on Drugs, ANCD, to be chaired by Major Brian Watters of the Salvation Army. All Australian governments have expressed concerns regarding the establishment of the ANCD, noting that it could undermine the role of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, which consists of health and law enforcement Ministers from all jurisdictions as a pre-eminent decision-making body on drugs policy. I believe that these concerns have now been addressed, with all jurisdictions agreeing at the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy meeting in May 1998 to an ACT proposal to make the Australian National Council on Drugs an advisory body only.

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