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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1647 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

understanding how we can address the causes-whether it is mental health, the society we live in, alienation of young people or whatever. Obviously, we need to look at the causes across the whole field. We also need to be able to take on these sorts of crisis-oriented responses.

As Mr Wood said, the evidence in other countries is overwhelming that only places which have had the courage to look at controversial reactions or responses are actually addressing these broader health issues. The safe injecting room is one and needle exchange is another. It is seen by some countries not to be appropriate to have needle exchanges, so we are seeing a much wider spread of these very serious diseases. We do have a needle exchange program and people have come to accept it. It was controversial at the time of introduction. This trial is another way of looking at whether we can assist these people and the broader community in this way. I support what Mr Kaine is saying. I agree that it is necessary to have the methodology as stringent as possible. I am glad that Mr Moore has said that he is open to that. I am glad also that Labor is supportive. I am just waiting now to see whether we can actually have some impact on the effect of heroin on people in the ACT.

MR KAINE (12.11), in reply: I must say that when I brought this motion on I did not expect that there would be much opposition to it because it is essentially, I thought, a sensible proposal. But I brought it on specifically to give myself the opportunity of articulating to the minister what my concerns are, and my concerns are reflective of the concerns of lots of people. I do not think I stand alone on this issue. The debate has served that purpose and I think that the minister is aware that there are concerns and of the nature of those concerns.

To pick up a couple of points that emerged from the debate, the minister said, and I am paraphrasing, that he did not think that he was qualified to deal with the science of the trial and would leave that to others. I do not quibble with that. Who in this place is qualified to conduct a scientifically based trial? There might be one or two of us, but in the main we would not be so qualified. The same applies to the minister's advisory committee. There might be one or two members of that committee who are qualified to deal with the science of the thing but, by and large, they would not be so qualified.

That raises a question which is the nub of the issue: how do we do it? How do we ensure at the end of the day that there is some validity to the methodology, to the process and to the outcomes? Who are we going to bring on board to make sure that that is so, so that we can be satisfied? We have to get, through the tender process presumably, experts in the field who can advise us and on whose advice we can rely, and that is the point. The minister said that he did scientific trials in the context of cost. It almost smacked of the lowest tender, and we all know what that means. But I give the minister credit; I do not think he quite meant that. He was implying that there is a cost that has to be taken into account and I do not dispute that.

Ms Tucker questioned the concept of a scientific trial. She needs to understand that when I talk about a scientific trial I am talking about the method. It has to be a method that is based on objectivity, not subjectivity. I do not envisage any complex mathematical formulas intruding into the process. I do not mean scientific in that sense, but the trial has to be seen to be objective. In that sense it has to be a logical process and one that stands

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