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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4163 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

This Bill, as amended by Labor, does not authorise anyone to possess, use or deal in drugs of dependence or prohibited substances. In its terms it specifically prohibits any operator, manager and staff of the supervised injecting place from using, selling or possessing within that place, and it prohibits users from selling or supplying within that place and from possessing any more than a set quantity of drugs within the place.

In developing its amendments to this Bill, Labor has consulted widely with community groups. It has done the work that should have been publicly done by the Health Minister and the Government. Labor has sought and considered comments from the police, lawyers, families and friends of drug users, health professionals, the churches and voluntary workers.

Although there are diverse and strongly held views on the subject, overall the comments were supportive of the establishment of a supervised injecting place. One comment from the Criminal Law Committee of the ACT Law Society, not exactly your rabid reactionaries in the community, was that the benefits were likely to be a reduction in the number of intravenous drug overdose deaths; a reduction in the number and cost of ambulance calls to intravenous drug overdoses; a decrease in the transmission of blood-borne viruses; an increase in the contact between intravenous drug users and counselling, treatment and rehabilitation services; a reduction in the dangers arising from discarded used syringes in public places; and a reduction in the nuisance of intravenous drug users injecting and overdosing in public. In fact, these community consultations have resulted in many valuable suggestions concerning safeguards and the drafting of amendments.

Meanwhile, regrettably, the Government is in disarray again over this issue and has done virtually nothing to ascertain what the community wants. A bipartisan approach on this important health and safety issue would have been constructive, but most of the Liberals will vote against their Government's Bill. Two-thirds of the Liberals intend to vote against their own Government's Bill. Do they think the drug problem will go away if they cravenly avoid their responsibilities as community representatives?

The question has to be asked: How many Liberal Party views are there on this critical issue? There is the view of one section of the Cabinet and the view of a second. There is, of course, a third Cabinet view, that of the supposedly Independent Minister. There is the view of the Liberal party room, which is different to the view of the Liberal Cabinet. There is the view of the Liberal Party, which opposes the trial as well as opposing the Liberal Cabinet and the Liberal party room. And there is the view of the rabid commentators, led by Graham Gilbert, a failed Liberal Party candidate. Graham Gilbert, I understand, ran third out of three candidates behind Labor's Harry Quick in the seat of Franklin in 1993.

Mr Hargreaves: Was that last?

MR STANHOPE: Someone else entered a donkey, I understand, just as a joke, and the donkey ran second.

MR SPEAKER: Relevance, I suggest, Mr Stanhope.

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