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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3245 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

practice prison would be able to implement a program of rehabilitation for prisoners to leave gaol drug free. The rationale for providing sterilising solutions for detainees at Belconnen Remand Centre is that, and I quote, "Without more intrusive search regimes, some drugs will still be brought into the centre by detainees using various means". Why do we not implement tighter search mechanisms? After all, these people are detainees. They are not on holidays. We should not be turning a blind eye to illegal drug use in the remand centre.

I note the Chief Minister's tabling speech for this strategy. She calls it the government strategy. I contend that this is Mr Moore's agenda. The Liberal Party is claiming ownership of this strategy. It is the same Liberal Party which has an unresolved motion before its ACT branch, proposing to send the issue to referendum. The Liberal Party is clearly divided on this issue and yet the Chief Minister is claiming it to be a government strategy. I think not, Mr Speaker.

Even more interesting is the Labor Party's move to stake a claim in the ownership of this strategy. Without the Labor Party the shooting gallery is a non-issue. Without the Labor Party the numbers just are not there. If this shooting gallery does go ahead, it will not be remembered as Michael Moore's shooting gallery; it will not be remembered as the Liberal Party's shooting gallery. It will be remembered as the Labor Party's shooting gallery. And it will be remembered as Stanhope's shooting-up shrine.

It is no secret, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party is not united on this, either. I know there are members of the Labor Party who know that Mr Stanhope's insistence on imposing this on the Canberra community will be detrimental to their party. The bottom line is that the community at large does not want this. Mr Stanhope is not reading the community. I urge Mr Stanhope and the Labor Party to reconsider their position on this. The Labor Party must reconsider the direction that Mr Stanhope is taking them on this one.

Another topic I am passionate about, Mr Speaker, is heroin babies. I have mentioned this in the house before. Unless I am mistaken, I cannot find a mention of this special needs area in the drug strategy. I have had personal experience in this area. And how do the harm minimisation principles apply in this case? What about the harm to the baby? I have heard the piercing screams that come from these babies' little lungs, and it is like nothing I have heard before. I have had plenty of experience with babies. We have had five of our own, and I know what the cry of a baby should sound like. But, Mr Speaker, this baby was in sheer agony, needing constant comfort. It was hard to imagine what the baby was going through as we tried to wean him off his addiction to heroin and his addiction to morphine. You have not seen distress until you have seen a baby in that state.

The direction, the guidance and information made available to us at that time left a lot to be desired. It was a delicate situation but the contingencies that were in place were not thorough. There had not been enough work done or completed in policy areas to prepare

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