Page 1439 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is for this reason that I think it is appropriate that we do not try to establish a methamphetamine-specific strategy separate from the whole-of-government strategy. We should not take a fragmented approach to this complex problem. It needs an approach that is consistent with both the nationally agreed direction and with our broader approach to dealing with the use and misuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as is outlined in the government’s existing strategy.
The alcohol, tobacco and other drugs strategy evaluation group, which oversees the development of the ACT alcohol, tobacco and other drugs strategy, provides advice to ACT Health on the changing needs of the ACT community and the relative effectiveness of alternative investments and interventions across the three areas of harm minimisation and also evaluates and monitors the strategy’s implementation. The group is made up of expert representatives who seek advice from key committees and they consult with the community, clients, service providers and other key stakeholders. I commend the amendment and, I trust, the amended motion to the Assembly.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Dr Bourke): The question is that the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.06): I will close, and speak to the amendment to the amendments. I will not reiterate what I said in my original speech because much of what I said has been reinforced by those opposite. I thank them for their comments. It would appear that there is a consensus in this place that there is a real problem here with ice, that it is a growing problem and that the response needs to be multifaceted. It is not just about law and order; it is about health, rehab, education and community awareness. Non-government providers need to be a significant part of this. And our response obviously needs to be coordinated not just within the ACT but with the federal government and with other jurisdictions, in particular New South Wales.
I think that, with the amendment to the amendments, the effect of what I am asking for is largely met. I am not getting everything I wanted because the language is slightly modified. But, in essence, through the amendment to the amendments, my motion remains largely unchanged and what I am calling for will be broadly recognised in what has been proposed both by Mr Barr and by Mr Rattenbury. So I will be supporting the amendment to the amendments and then the amendments, as amended, to my motion because that will, I think, achieve what I set out to do—that is, make sure that this government is focused on the issue, that it is looking to a response in the ACT that is cognisant of what is happening in other jurisdictions and is addressing what those implications are for the ACT and informing the community.
The time line has moved from August to September, but, given some of the work that is happening federally, I am comfortable with that. The reality is that we have achieved a good outcome here today. I think there is much work to be done, but just as we were able to work together on the issue of domestic violence recently, I do not want to get bogged down in language. Back then we were talking about whether it was a roundtable or a special meeting. It does not matter what the language is. I do not want to have a squabble in this place about the language; I want to make sure that what we achieve is the effect. I think this will get us there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video