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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4164 ..

MR STANHOPE: Who speaks formally for the Liberals on this issue?

Mr Hird: I know one person who does not, and that is you.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Hird is going to speak later for the Liberals on this issue. Of course, it is one of the great ironies of politics that it is the supposedly Independent Minister, Michael Moore, the cement that holds this right-wing coalition together, that speaks for the Liberal Party on drugs.

To ensure that the supervised injecting room trial remains in touch and responsive to the community throughout, our amendments establish an advisory committee to consist of representatives of the bureaucracy, police, the legal profession, ambulance services, the medical profession, criminologists, business, residents closest to the location of the facility, researchers and organisations delivering services to drug users. A detailed list is contained in the legislation. Clearly, in practice, the committee may prove to be too large or other relevant groups may need to be represented, so we propose that the membership of the advisory committee may be reduced or extended by regulations.

Labor does not support unconditionally the implementation of the supervised injecting place trial. We have imposed and discussed previously a number of conditions. The legal issues must be adequately addressed before the trial begins. A protocol covering the legal issues involved must be in place. A range of rehabilitation facilities, including youth rehabilitation services, must be established concurrently with the trial and referrals must be available from within the facility. It is not overstating the case to say that as a direct result of Labor's position on this we now have the Ted Noffs Youth Rehabilitation Centre, and I am pleased to say that WIREDD have an additional counsellor.

We also require that the Government announce a range of new and innovative education and disincentive programs in its campaign against drug use; that the location of the place of the trial be negotiated by the advisory committee and the Minister with businesses located nearby; and that the costs of the trial - and we await with interest the Government's response to this - not be borne by the health budget. We await with interest the Government's announcement of the sources of revenue for the trial. Even though the Bill will not require the Government to meet all of these conditions before opening the facility, I would expect as a result of negotiations with the Minister that he would ensure that they are met or reasons given as to why they are not.

As both the Labor Party and Ms Tucker of the Greens have stressed, the supervised injecting place must form one part only of a broader drug strategy. This strategy must encompass treatment, harm reduction and education. And it may be that this trial will point the way to the development of more effective approaches. Evaluation methods and conduct for this trial also need to be carefully planned in advance, given the relatively short timeframe of two years in which to conduct the trial, evaluate the results and decide whether the facility should continue or close.

Hard information on drug use in the ACT is largely not available, apart from data on court convictions of small-time users and dealers. During the public debate there has, I note, even been serious confusion among members of this place on such basic

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