Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2306 ..
MS TUCKER: Yes, thank you. We know that people die or are permanently damaged when they inject in unsafe places, when they overdose alone, when their use of drugs is compounded by mental health problems, and when they see no options for getting out of the cycle in which they are trapped. Such deaths and illnesses are horrific for the victims and for their families and friends and the members of the community who look after them and come across them. They are also expensive and demoralising for the wider community.
What are the signals we want to send to people who are addicted to drugs? The trial of a supervised injecting place sends a signal that we want them to stay alive, that we want them to be as healthy as possible, that we want them to find a way out of drugs and that we are not going to damn them as worthless, criminals or immoral and will explore a range of strategies to this end. It sends a signal to families and friends of injecting drug users that we do want their loved ones to survive, to remain healthy and to take advantage of opportunities to get free of addiction and destructive lifestyles.
The Greens will support the trial of a medically supervised injecting place as one component of a broad strategy to address the continuing and growing problems of dependent drug use. The Greens look to develop a range of problems in dealing with complex issues. We are of the view that little is gained in making black-and-white moral judgements of others and look to a social policy and health response which is built on health principles and compassion.
In this instance, the two Independents in the Assembly have declared moral objections to the trial of a supervised injection place. They have expressed that view in a number of forums over the past year and spoke emphatically against this trial in the Assembly last year. Mr Rugendyke says that he has been told by drug users that it would not have helped them. A number of people in the community have a different view on that. Drug users have a different view as well. If this particular response will help some drug users, then we should be trying it.
In light of the shared commitment of the government and the opposition to this trial, we are all aware that the position of Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke does differentiate them in the market. Being seen to stand up to those who are "too soft on drugs" will do them no harm politically. Maybe that is one of their motivations. A less cynical approach is that they have a genuine belief that having this trial is not the right thing for us to do in response to this problem.
We have been left with a situation whereby this matter has been debated in the Assembly and the decision of a majority of the members is that having a safe injecting place is something worth trialling. For that reason, the Greens consider that it is a reasonable thing to vote for the health line in this budget because the debate has clearly become one about the supervised injecting place. For that reason, it is something worth considering, but I want to make it clear that I do not support the thrust of the rest of the health budget. I am very concerned about many aspects of it for the reasons I have already outlined.
MS CARNELL
(Chief Minister) (8.16): I agree with some of what Ms Tucker says. When we came to government in 1995, I became health minister. I have to say that it is one of the best portfolios-this shows a serious masochistic streak-that I have ever had. The reason I stood for parliament in 1992 was that I believed strongly that health policy
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .