Page 4364 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I then ask the Assembly to note that “rehabilitation from substance addiction is made difficult in an environment where illicit drugs are accessible”. That is a self-evident factor. If you were trying to rehabilitate from illicit drugs, either in the community or in jail, then, if those sorts of drugs are readily available, it is more difficult to rehabilitate yourself. Like an alcoholic who has access to alcohol, a drug addict will have ready access to drugs. That is why, when people in the community get sent to rehabilitation, that is an environment that is drug free. I do not see what the Assembly could have a problem with in relation to that.
I then ask the Assembly to note that “the Chief Minister has informed media that drugs are readily available to prisoners at the AMC”. These are just lifting direct quotes from the Canberra Times of last week.
We then move on to asking the Assembly to confirm its commitment to eradicate illicit drug use at the AMC. That should be our goal. I am a realist; I do accept that it is a difficult and complex issue, but if we do not have as our goal the intent of eradicating drug use then I think that we are no longer adhering to the mission of corrections ACT. Corrections ACT has a mission:
To protect the community by providing a safe, secure and humane correctional system which encourages offenders to rehabilitate.
We should all agree that eradicating drug use by recognising that that is a challenging and difficult issue is an entirely reasonable thing to expect. And the motion asks the Assembly to confirm the commitment to the rehabilitation of prisoners suffering from addiction. Is there someone that wants to put their hand up and disagree with that statement? What problem do the government or the Greens have with that statement? I simply do not understand.
All those things that I am asking the Assembly to note and to confirm are entirely reasonable and entirely consistent, I would have thought, with the principles that have been espoused—although we have differing points of view on needle exchange, and I accept that. My motion does not mention needle exchange. I cannot see what there is in this motion. I will certainly grant leave if you want to point to a specific part of this motion where you would disagree with any of those statements.
Then the motion calls on the ACT government:
… to table in the Assembly by close of business on 23 September 2010, an explanation of all measures it is taking to prevent drugs from entering the AMC and to ensure that prisoners remain drug free.
If Mr Stanhope believes he has already done that through his statement, I would say that, if he has got nothing more to add to that, simply tabling that would be the full response. Then, if that is his response, that will be fine.
I understand that we have some heated debate in this place and I understand that there are some significant differences of opinion about various aspects of policy and how they are implemented. But I have been advised that this motion will not be supported.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video