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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3243 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Yet resources for and commitment to these kinds of programs are not mentioned in the drug strategy.

The strategy makes much of accessibility and improved service provision, but it is still quite unclear how moving from a system where people could almost always see a counsellor that same day - I am talking now about the drug and alcohol unit - to one in which they can almost never see a counsellor that same day and instead have to go through a phone system is delivering a better service or is more accessible. I am not quite sure. Personal contact and timing are critical elements of this kind of service. It is strange that a single point of entry is regarded as more important than making personal contact at a critical time. This does not seem to have been conceived or evaluated with the principles of accessibility or cultural appropriateness in mind.

The Greens, of course, have also consistently reminded the Assembly about the importance of addressing the complex underlying issues of drug use, and other members have raised this. How we are responding to young people who may have mental health problems is of concern. I am still concerned about the availability of such services for young people.

The methadone program is being extended by providing a parallel private stream. Though detail is not provided, we always have to be aware of issues of privacy and that the profit motive is taken into account in the user-pays system. We need to be sure that safeguards exist to ensure that the primary focus of the supply of methadone is to keep people healthy and alive and to support them to move off drugs, as is appropriate in each case.

The other thing I am concerned about that is missing from the strategy is recognition of the support needs of workers. This is a very difficult area to work in and people's lives are at stake. The clients being served can be hostile and demanding, and the issues are heart-wrenching. It is essential that workers be personally supported and well resourced in their work. While, as I said, I do welcome many elements of this strategy and the new crisis treatment places in particular, I am concerned to see that resources and commitment to follow through on the goals actually occurs.

There are general issues around why our young people are using drugs in the way that they are. If they are using them in a self-destructive way - I do not say that all drug use is destructive at all - they obviously have issues that need to be resolved. The Greens certainly support initiatives such as a safe injecting place. (Further extension of time granted) Some members do not like the use of the word "safe". The Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, apparently people from New South Wales - some Liberal members actually - were more comfortable with a safe injecting place if it was not called "safe" but was called "medically supervised". That was interesting to me. If those sorts of problems exist, maybe some members here would find it more acceptable if it was medically supervised. I have heard some members here express concern about the

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