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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4165 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

questions as what is a trafficable quantity of heroin. This medically supervised trial, with associated counselling and referral, will hopefully provide some of the empirical evidence we need on which we can base future policies.

There has been debate about whether Australia's international treaty obligations would prevent the establishment of a medically supervised drug injecting facility. I have listened to the debate and noted the comments of the scrutiny of Bills committee on this point. I have also looked very seriously at the various opinions that have been prepared on the subject. There are two relevant treaties - the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The treaties permit member states enough freedom to take account of local conditions and to establish medical or clinical trials involving illicit drugs. The establishment of a rigorously controlled and evaluated medically supervised drug injection facility in the ACT clearly, in my opinion, fits within this criterion.

In the United States the zero tolerance policies have proved to be a disaster, as have the earlier do-nothing approaches within Australia. This ACT trial, together with similar strictly monitored trials in New South Wales and Victoria, will build the database we need for policy development. Like New South Wales, we propose that addicts be allowed to take only a minimum amount of drug into the supervised injecting place. Immunity would apply only to half a gram of heroin, for example. Unlike in New South Wales, the amount is definite and it is far smaller than amounts permitted in the Victorian scheme.

The Australian Federal Police to date have shown good sense and restraint in the handling of the drug problem. Our world-leading needle exchange program, which has cut AIDS deaths significantly, could not have been achieved without the cooperation of the AFP. The AFP has also adopted a similar approach in not attending drug overdose cases. This legislation simply requires the AFP to continue their present policies in respect of the handling of drug users. There is no doubt that we have one of the best and most professional police forces in the world, and I have absolutely no doubt that the AFP will respond to the leadership shown by this Assembly in relation to the drug injecting place. I have no doubt at all that members of the Australian Federal Police will respond to this legislation and to the leadership shown by their elected representatives of their parliament in the implementation of this trial.

Mr Speaker, the problems that illicit drug use causes cannot be fixed by this initiative. They cannot be fixed by any single initiative that we take here in the ACT or that any other jurisdiction takes. There must be a comprehensive policy on Australia's problems with illicit drugs, but unfortunately the signals from the Federal Government are not good on that front. It would be far better if we could have coordination and cooperation between State and Territory and the Commonwealth Government.

And we need harm reduction programs, such as a medically supervised injecting place to tackle the immediate health and social problems caused by drug use, to keep users alive, to improve safety in the community by reducing the level of drug-related crime, and to reduce the spread of disease through needle-stick injuries and needle-sharing practices. In addition, and possibly most importantly, we must tackle the education, unemployment, health and social problems facing our young people. For these strategies

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