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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3356 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this legislation does not punish them in any way, nor does it withdraw or reduce their access to services. Rather, it seeks to address a point of balance that is of concern to many in the community and to provide a reasonable compromise between the conflicting interests of this harm minimisation measure.

Needle distribution and needle exchange programs began in Australia about a decade ago in response to an alarming spread of HIV and hepatitis C amongst the intravenous drug using population around the world. In Australia, the incidence of blood-borne viruses has been kept under fairly good control. This has been due to a number of factors. I am happy to agree that one of those contributing factors is a reduction in the risky practice of needle sharing. To this end, easy access to clean injecting equipment has played a part.

Before I go on to explain the main points of this bill I would point out that, just as needle distribution is not intended as the answer to our illicit drug problem, this legislation is not an attempt at a comprehensive solution. Many of our community have a dim view of needle distribution. I have generally found that opinion rising out of the dual concerns that those who receive a syringe are intending to break the law as it currently stands and that there are much better ways of addressing the real and felt needs of drug users.

I believe that there are few in our city that indiscriminately hate drug users. Instead, there is widespread concern for their welfare. However, they are equally concerned about the level of current treatment options and that those options do not impose too greatly on the 98 per cent of those who choose not to take intravenous drugs.

Mr Speaker, I have made no secret of what I think about some aspects of harm minimisation policy. In fact, I have so little regard for the concept in general that next sitting I will be presenting for the community's consideration a comprehensive alternative drug policy that is based on a successful Swedish model. That policy is based on the principle of harm prevention, with the main emphasise being on education, rehabilitation and treatment, and law enforcement. I would also point out that a needle exchange program will be included in that policy.

This bill seeks to do four things: one, to restrict needle distribution and exchange to registered facilities; two, to provide regular reports to the public via this Assembly on the activities of those facilities; three, to ensure that facilities distribute needles on either an exchange or sale basis; and, four, to allow up to 10 needles only to be given out at one time.

Mr Speaker, other than simplistic assumption and knee-jerk opposition by hard core harm minimisation zealots, there is nothing in this bill to suggest that needle exchange activity is in any way under threat. On the contrary, there could well be a number of positive outcomes if there is the will to put this legislation to work. I am convinced of this, Mr Speaker, because of extensive research and a consideration of scientific studies that have been done in Europe and North America.

Of course, for this legislation to work would require a far more positive response than the Neanderthal politicking that the Leader of the Opposition displayed to this bill yesterday. I make no apology for holding strong views or opinions, nor do I care much that the ALP occasionally finds them to be unreasonable. However, to label someone

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