Page 4698 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would also like to address Mr Bill Aldcroft’s submission, which Mr Hanson has quoted a number of times in the media and in his speech today. Mr Hanson issued a media release on 21 June this year, entitled “100% of prisoners reject NSP says Prisoners Aid veteran”. Two things need to be noted about this. I am concerned about how Mr Hanson got hold of a confidential submission and used it publicly in the first place. Also, he linked Mr Aldcroft with Prisoners Aid, which Mr Aldcroft did not want to occur, as Prisoners Aid does not have a formal position on this matter.
We must consider the substance of Mr Hanson’s allegations that 100 per cent of prisoners do not support an NSP. If prisoners are asked, as they were, just before they appear before the courts whether or not they support an NSP, of course they are going to say no. They need to be able to show to the courts and the people helping them before the courts, like Mr Aldcroft, that they have no association with drugs. If you wanted to get a prisoner to say no to an NSP, there would be no better time to ask them than when they are about to appear before court, hoping for release. However, if you asked a prisoner post release what they thought about a proposed NSP, they would be much more likely to say what they really thought and that they agreed with the idea.
It is important to note that the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy conducted focus groups with ex-prisoners as a part of the Public Health Association of Australia report, and there was overwhelming support for an NSP through those focus groups. As has been noted by CAHMA and AIVL, who have had a great and strong association with this issue, of course prisoners are going to have questions on how an NSP would work, and this would need to be taken into account in developing a model for trial and implementation.
As we have already noted today, it is worth listing all the groups that explicitly support an NSP, as Mr Hanson has paid no attention to those groups at all. I am assuming Mr Hanson includes those groups in his ideological group of people supporting quasi legalisation of drugs. Those groups include the Australian Medical Association, the human rights commissioner, the Health Services Commissioner, ACTCOSS, Anex, Hepatitis Australia, the Burnet Institute, the Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Association of the ACT, Directions ACT, Alcohol and Other Drug Foundation ACT, Karralika, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, CAHMA and AIVL——whom I have already mentioned—and Northside Community Services. I would also like to specifically mention the Hon Michael Kirby, who very much supports the idea of an NSP.
Michael Kirby sits on the commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which is due to report back on the state of HIV in commonwealth countries at CHOGM this week. I understand that he will be mentioning the ACT government’s efforts in discussions at CHOGM as an example of best practice in terms of efforts to address the spread of HIV among target populations. Given Mr Hanson’s claim recently that HIV is not a problem in the ACT prison population, perhaps he needs to consider the views of eminent people such as Michael Kirby.
I would also like to note the late Dr Peter Sharp. He was a strong supporter of the NSP and he actually asked for his support to be expressly stated at his memorial service, which it was.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video