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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3587 ..

On the statistical side, we have to accept that there is not much positive supporting argument that the installation of syringe vending machines will contribute significantly to stemming the spread of disease. That is what the government expects, otherwise it clearly would not have introduced this bill. Less clear is the likelihood of meeting the program’s key expectations.

As has been said, the ACT already has in place a comprehensive needle and syringe program, but injecting drug users do not have 24-hour access to clean injecting equipment. It has also been said that 2,500 people in the ACT alone have hepatitis C. If we juxtaposed those statements, could it be inferred that all those 2,500 people with hepatitis C in the ACT contracted the illness through using unclean injecting equipment and that that came about because the ACT did not provide 24-hour access to clean injecting equipment?

Is that a reasonable inference? Unfortunately, we cannot with confidence draw that inference, as we do not have firm facts with which to work. We know that one of the ways in which hepatitis C is contracted is through using unclean injecting equipment, but we also know that it can be contracted by other means. So maybe not all the 2,500 sufferers contracted the illness through using unclean injecting equipment.

It is proposed that these vending machines will be located outside four, possibly five, of the city’s health centres and that measures will be taken to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate access to machines and their contents. Let us pause for a moment to consider that proposal. The machines are to be located at a height that will minimise the possibility of children putting money into them. If the program is to work efficiently, the machines must be reasonably and readily accessible to the average, run-of-the-mill young drug user. I find it difficult to conceive that, on the one hand, it will allow for ready access but, on the other hand, it is capable of defeating the never to be underestimated resourcefulness of children. With the best will in the world, one cannot conclude that children will not access those machines. That is a serious concern because it could lead to harm. That is one area that has caused some conflict in this debate.

Evidently these machines are to be covered with steel mesh security grills. Such protection might be a robust deterrent. However, if the machine is to be of any use it has to be readily accessible. If it is accessible to a drug-using teenager, there is no doubt that it will be accessible to a child. The goal of minimising the possibility of children accessing the contents by putting money into the machines is an unsatisfactory half-baked goal. A clear possible consequence is that the child who accesses the machine will be harmed. That possibility, which is openly acknowledged, therefore exists.

At this stage, that possibility is unacceptable; therefore, the likelihood of its occurrence should not be encouraged. In trying to reduce harm to one group we will potentially be exposing another very vulnerable group to a different sort of harm. That just does not make sense. Minimising the possibility of harm is a poor alternative to not creating the possibility of harm in the first place. As I cannot get my head around the idea that it is somehow all right to pursue a goal to service a minority in the clear knowledge that the means of pursuing that goal will create the potential for harm to another group in society that we should be doing our best to protect from harm, regretfully, I cannot support this bill.

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