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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 306 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The ACT, and Australia, is a world leader in dealing with the difficult problems of drug abuse. For instance, in the last couple of months, this community endorsed a trial of a safe injecting place. The Labor Party, as everybody knows, was prepared to support that initiative, designed to gain the evidence about whether it had a role to play in dealing with the myriad issues affecting communities in relation to illicit drug users. It is the consistent approach adopted by the Minister, Mr Moore, and Ms Tucker in relation to almost everything that we do in this community in relation to drugs. We have to deal with the question of the disposal of syringes in the same generic way in which we deal with all other aspects of the enormously difficult problems confronting us in relation to drugs; that is, we must have a rigorous, evidence-based approach to the problem. If we do not pursue evidence-based responses, all we will do is alienate some parts of the community in relation to a problem that affects the entire community. If we wish to move forward with this problem, we must take the entire community with us.

This is a classic case of pursuing an initiative without the evidence and, in so doing, simply alienating a significant sector of the community, namely the hotel, tavern and nightclub owners. Tavern owners and their representatives have approached my office and have said to my face - and I have no reason to disbelieve them - that they have never had to take a disposed syringe from their public toilets. If tavern owners come to me and say, "I have never had an injecting drug user in my toilets that I'm aware of. My premises, my business, my business of selling alcohol simply does not attract injecting drug users and I am offended at being singled out to provide this particular service", why shouldn't I believe them. (Extension of time granted)

To compound that, those of us in this place that have inquired into this issue are then confronted by a government position based on no evidence. In simple fairness we have to step back and say, "Well, on what basis have we decided to single out these 81 establishments and say to these 81 establishments, 'We will legislate that you must have syringe disposal units'?". In effect, we are legislating that 162 toilets in private premises throughout Canberra have syringe disposal units and, if we ever get around to it, we will deal with the other tens of thousands of locations.

If we are going to deal with these things in a consistent, strategic way - if we are going to take the entire community with us, if we are genuinely serious about this very grave problem - we have to do the job properly. Do not divide the community, do not make these 81 business people feel that they are bearing the unfair brunt of a selective response to a community-wide problem.

The Government produced no evidence. What did Mr Humphries produce to us this morning as the justification? I have his letter. He has anecdotal evidence that an unnamed cleaner may have received a needlestick injury in unnamed premises, at an unknown location, at a time that has not been revealed. This morning the Minister gave us anecdotal evidence. The Minister then went on to say that licensing inspectors have from time to time seen some syringes. He did this in the face of the response from tavern owners that have spoken to members directly - tavern owners that have said, "I have never had a single syringe in my premises and we know the Minister has no stats.". Why should I disbelieve the tavern owners, as Mr Humphries did this morning?

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