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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2388 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

What has changed between 9 December 1999 and now to justify the postponement? It is a pity that the minister moving for the amendment did not address the bill at all, that he sought no justification for the postponement. We did not have a single argument. It is relevant to reflect on what has happened since last December in relation to this matter. It is a pity that none of these issues was addressed by the Attorney in moving for the postponement, that he did not speak to some of the practical difficulties that might have been confronted and some of the difficulties that the minister for health has faced in trying to get the trial up and running.

Perhaps it is worth reflecting on some of the requirements that the minister needed to satisfy to have the injecting place open its doors and function-the minister for health, not the minister who has moved for the amendment. We know some of the things that the minister has done. The minister has appointed the 17-member advisory committee that he was required to appoint. The advisory committee has met a number of times.

Seventeen very senior and significant members of this community have met on a number of times and given up their time to give detailed consideration to the operation of the injecting place. I understand that they have worked diligently and conscientiously to produce unanimous or consensus decisions on the wide range of issues that they had to confront. That work has been done.

The committee has recommended a site for a trial. The minister accepted that recommendation and reportedly put administrative procedures in train to refurbish the accommodation, to fence the building and to relocate a nearby child-care facility. The minister has done all these things. The site has been located and the committee is working.

The committee discussed and recommended criteria for the evaluation of the trial. The minister accepted and tabled those criteria in this Assembly, as he was required to do by the legislation. Many of us thought that the criteria were not rigorous enough and wrote to the minister to tell him so. He has undertaken to have the advisory committee revisit those criteria. There is an ongoing process there.

Notwithstanding that particular undertaking, already he has done what the act requires in relation to evaluation criteria; he has actually fulfilled his legislative requirements in relation to the evaluation. The minister has selected a community organisation to manage the supervised injecting place. Presumably, it was working towards relocating there. One assumes also that it is an existing efficient organisation that already has written management procedures in place. It is a short step from there to the internal management protocol that the legislation requires to be put in place.

A request for tenders has been issued for an organisation to carry out the evaluation. Great efforts have been put into clearing the way so that some of Australia's foremost researchers can respond to the request for tender. Benchmarking work has been done so that a before and after comparison of the value of the injecting place can be carried out. I am told that as recently as last week work was proceeding to put the finishing touches to the law enforcement protocol. The protocol would have been the most difficult part of the administrative arrangements, but the minister has been able to get it to an advanced stage.

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