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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3249 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

But also there is a growing change in attitude to somebody who has overdosed. I mentioned in an adjournment debate the other day that I saw somebody rush to the side of a person who was overdosed. That reflects a changing attitude that we are dealing with people and these people have families. These people are individuals who have lives. We should do what we can to protect those lives; to save lives, even if we happen to disagree with the approach.

Mr Hargreaves also made a comment about preventative programs funded by Justice and Community Service. The first example off the top of my head is Neighbourhood Watch. There is a whole range of them though. That range of preventative programs is what makes this policy important. It is a very broad strategy. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, it was not ever designed to be the length of a bible. It is about a broad strategy that facilitates consistent strategies within other areas. When we talk about questions raised about the methadone stream, about rehabilitation and so forth, they are all in there. And we will be providing them. Mr Hargreaves drew our attention to - and I think it is very important - the fact that we should maintain our focus on people, individuals. That is a very important focus.

Ms Tucker raised a range of issues about the drug and alcohol program. There has been change there. There have been broad consultations. There has been huge consultation - a huge amount of effort into evaluation of what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve. Some disagree with the outcome. That does not mean to say consultation has not taken place. Apparently consultation is always good enough when you agree with the outcome, but if you disagree with the outcome then the consultation is not good enough. That is a very unfair approach. There has been a very broad consultation process by management. But we are seeking to make change. That means there will be some down-side. (Extension of time granted)

Another comment Ms Tucker made requires a response. She referred to an article in the Canberra Times and asked where is the ministerial oversight. Ms Tucker will be pleased to know that the people involved have been counselled about how close they get to clients and what is an appropriate distance for a health worker as normal, appropriate conduct of health professionals. Ms Tucker should understand that within a jurisdiction mistakes will happen. Ministerial oversight ensures that when a mistake is drawn to our attention, we do our very best to make sure that it does not happen again and that we have the appropriate policies in place to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen.

I was disappointed in Mr Rugendyke's attack on harm minimisation. There is nowhere in the world that Mr Rugendyke would be able to identify where a zero tolerance approach has actually worked. He may choose the Swedish system. The level of death that occurs under the Swedish system and the level of scrutiny that goes on in their system leave much to be desired. And if you read what the Swedish Government puts out, you would think that you have got a fairly good answer on that.

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