Page 4705 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
denying that person access to drugs and by not sustaining their habit through a needle and syringe program and not sustaining a habit that will then mean, when they are released, when they have completed their period of incarceration, that they continue not only with their crime but with the very thing that caused their crime in the first place; that is, their addiction to drugs.
When we make these comments, they are based on the views not just of the corrections officers and the nurses but also of the prisoners and what is in their best interest. In many cases, as has been reported today in the comments from Bill Aldcroft in his submission to the Michael Moore inquiry and in the comments that I have received from other prisoners—and, indeed, one of those was reported in the Canberra Times recently—many prisoners are opposed to a needle and syringe program.
So this is a very serious issue. The ramifications are potentially tragic, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Contrary to some of the commentary today, I have engaged in this debate. I have attended conferences run by the Public Health Association in Melbourne. I have conducted and attended forums on this matter. I have engaged with those who are opposed to my position in this debate, including Anex, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform and others.
This is a very serious issue and it is not one to be taken lightly, and it is not a matter of taking a simplistic view of the issue. It is a matter of looking at the evidence, having the discussion and coming to a conclusion. And our conclusion is that a needle and syringe program will not support the aims of what we want to achieve; that is, a reduction in drug use, a reduction in crime and a reduction in the transmission of hep C.
As I said during my initial speech, when being asked to look at whether we should be implementing a needle or syringe program, the first question to ask is: would that actually aid in the reduction of the transmission of hep C? In my view it would not, for the reasons outlined. The second question is whether the other programs that should be conducted at a jail are being conducted effectively at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. I think that the evidence from the Hamburger report, the Burnet Institute report and the absolute litany of problems that we have seen from this jail make it very clear that that is not the case, that the programs are not being run adequately.
I will not go through all of those again. No doubt, given the high rate of incidence of problems that we have seen at the jail, we will be back in this place soon to discuss another failure in the management of the jail.
What I am saying is not controversial. What I am saying is actually accepted by every jurisdiction in Australia, both Liberal Party and Labor Party, oppositions and governments across Australia, across Australasia and, indeed, across the English-speaking world. So what I am saying is not something that is controversial. What I am saying is that established, reasonable—
Mr Coe interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video