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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2305 ..

Mr Moore: Yes, ma'am.

MS TUCKER: Mr Moore is now getting upset because I am choosing to raise an issue of process. Mr Moore is very happy to raise issues of process when it suits him, but we cannot say to him, "Yes, sir, Mr Schoolteacher."

The questionable basis on which hospital funding is allocated and the presumption that it is too expensive in comparison with other facilities across Australia, identified in the budget as health efficiency improvement, simply demonstrate this devotion to the values of excess economics is inappropriate and casts its pall over the whole health portfolio, growth funds and healthy cities programs notwithstanding. There is no expenditure in the budget that indicates that such fundamental inadequacies are to be addressed in a coherent manner. I can find no good reason to support this line on that basis.

However, this particular debate is no longer a debate just on the health line overall. It has become a debate on the trial of the supervised injecting place. We debated this issue in detail in the Assembly last December and I will not restate all the arguments that I made at that time. But, having listened to Mr Rugendyke tonight, I do feel that I have to restate some of my position again.

I respect Mr Rugendyke's right to have the views he has. By the way, I have not said at any time that he does not have the right or that his principles have some lesser status than those of other members of this Assembly, including me. I do not know where he got that from. Also, I did not say that it was a minor issue, as Mr Osborne said. Obviously, if I thought it was a minor issue, I would not be considering how I will vote on the health line.

I think the supervised injecting place trial is an incredibly important issue for the health of the community in our city. I have seen people die because of a lack of services in other areas, but I have seen many more people die in this community because of their addiction to a substance and our society is doing nothing to protect them.

Basically, this trial will put us in a better position to protect our population from debilitating and deadly blood-borne diseases. This trial can assist us in developing a comprehensive public health policy which really will save lives. A lot is said about sending signals. The most important signal we can send is that everyone in our society ought to be treated with dignity and respect. After all, everyone wants to improve their quality of life and everyone hopes to stay healthy and positive, drug-dependent persons included.

For most drug addicts, as the research and as drug users and addicts themselves will tell you, it is simply a matter of time: a matter of time before they die of an overdose, perhaps; a matter of time before their health fails them; a matter of time before they learn to live with and manage their addiction; or a matter of time before they get clean. I know for a fact that time runs out for some.

MR SPEAKER: Indeed, Ms Tucker, time has run out for you. Would you like to speak for another 10 minutes?

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