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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 249 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

for intravenous drug use, but apparently they are shooting up somewhere in Civic, going up the stairs into the nightclub, going through the nightclub, going down the back stairs and disposing of their needles on the back stairs. I do not believe that.

I do not believe that users of licensed premises in the ACT, the sorts of places we are talking about in this motion, do not include intravenous drug users. Even if we assume that only a very small percentage of the clientele of those premises are intravenous drug users, then the argument that there is not a problem with intravenous drug use on their premises disappears. If there is any significant use, I would argue that there is an argument for the installation of bins.

The other evidence I have of the fact that needles are being discarded in these premises is that about 12 to 18 months ago in Civic a cleaner in licensed premises of the kind which this manual proposes should be regulated in this way received a needlestick injury from a needle discarded on those premises - not nearby, not in the alleyway outside, not just near the front door but inside the premises themselves.

I understand that the Labor Party today proposes to support this amendment to the standards manual. I am absolutely appalled at the hypocrisy evident in the ALP's position on such things as safe injecting places in this city, an acknowledgment of a significant problem with intravenous drug use - - -

Mr Quinlan: That is a trial.

MR HUMPHRIES: Should we make this a trial as well, Mr Quinlan? Are you happy to support that?

Mr Quinlan: Did you bring it forward as a trial?

MR HUMPHRIES: I will if you will support that.

Mr Quinlan: Get a little bit of empirical evidence.

MR HUMPHRIES: I have just given you the evidence, Mr Quinlan. You do not appear to be prepared to accept it. It is alleged that a cleaner in this city, a worker of the kind your party supposedly represents, was injured by a needlestick injury. This matter is probably subject to litigation of some sort, so I will not be dogmatic about the assertion, but a worker has allegedly been injured by a needlestick in those premises.

Where is the party of the workers in a debate like this? Where is the party that professed, only last December in this place, its concern about the spread of illicit drugs in the community and the adverse health impacts that those sorts of drugs would have on the broader community if some steps were not taken? Can you explain how you can support having safe injecting places and, as a consequence of that, it is asserted, a capacity to control the disposal of needles and yet not support a decision to have some means of safe disposal of needles in licensed premises in this city? I look forward to the explanation Mr Stanhope brings forward on that point.

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