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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1643 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Jon Stanhope drew up amendments that ensured that a 17-member committee made up of community representation from law enforcement agencies, the legal fraternity, business and residents associations, associated agencies, family and friends were all involved.

We were pleased that the minister was able to inform us that the decision in relation to the location of the facility and the operators of the facility was unanimous when made by such a large committee, which was a good sign. The minister wrote last week advising that he had adopted recommendations made by the committee in relation to a range of issues. The act requires the minister to consult and endeavour to agree with the committee on a wide range of matters surrounding the drug injection place. Section 5 of the act prevents the ministers from approving the place and declaring it open until certain conditions are met.

One of those matters was raised by Mr Kaine, that is, how the assessment criteria against which this trial is to be adjudged a success or failure are determined and notified to this Assembly. We acknowledge the need for the professionals, the experts appointed to carry out the evaluation, to determine the methodology of the evaluation, but the minister and the committee must accept that the community will want to see criteria that will ensure that the trial is truly a rigorously evaluated scientific trial.

The criteria must also ensure that the committee can in two years' time make an objective-I stress the word "objective"-recommendation about whether to continue the trial. I do no think that the criteria tabled last week satisfy that standard. Mr Stanhope has written to the minister telling him so and asking for the committee and for the minister to review the criteria.

Another matter raised by Mr Kaine-the need for the results of the assessment to be tabled in this place-is also embodied in the act as far as it is possible to do so. The act requires reports to the Assembly at six-month intervals, with a final report to be tabled when the act expires. The act expires two years after it commences. Given the uncertain starting date, it is difficult to nominate a particular date for the final report, except that stage.

Other matters raised by Mr Kaine are dependent upon who is selected under the normal government contracting and administrative procedures to carry out evaluations against the criteria set by the committee. We acknowledge Mr Kaine's concern over this matter and thank him for his continuing interest in the trial, despite the fact that he does not necessarily support it. It is only by ensuring that all sections of the community, whether they support the trial or not, are involved in the process that we will gather any meaningful information to assist in the battle to overcome the problem caused by drug addiction.

The Labor Party supports Mr Kaine's motion in the interests of keeping the minister up to the mark in the administration of the trial. We want to ensure that it is, as I say, truly a rigorously evaluated trial that will produce as much hard data as possible on which effective policy can be made about drug-related issues in the future. I cannot accept that setting some hard criteria would somehow make the whole trial cost prohibitive. If we do

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