- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 20 June 2007
Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 38 of 49
| Next Item »
Page: 1419
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [7.41 p.m.]: I make it clear at the start that I am opposed to this bill. The object of the bill is to allow an extension of a trial period that has been going since 1999 and will continue until 2011. I am disappointed that members of the Labor Party do not have a free vote on this legislation; I understand it is Government policy to extend the trial. That is a shame because on the last occasion this issue was debated some members of the Labor Party voted against it. Once members have been given a conscience vote on such an issue they should retain that conscience vote unless there is a very good reason for the Government to make it policy.
The legislation contradicts itself. It is not a trial; a trial does not last for 12 years. It is a ruse to avoid infringing Australia's international responsibilities under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre offers an opportunity for drug addicts to have a smorgasbord of illegal drugs. Indeed, if the Australian Federal Police went into the centre they could undoubtedly arrest everyone there for breaches of section 233B (1) (ca) of the Customs Act, which punishes possession of prohibited products that are reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia.
I prosecuted such offences years ago. We would call an expert witness to say that heroin generally is not made in Australia—although morphine is manufactured in Tasmania for medical purposes. Experts could be called to say that because of the composition of the drug they could prove to the satisfaction of the court that the heroin seized was imported. They could also distinguish the heroin that came from South East Asia from that which came from the Middle East. Cocaine, which is grown mainly in South America, is also used at the injecting centre. Admittedly, ice, amphetamines and other drugs are unfortunately manufactured in Australia. The Australian Federal Police would have a smorgasbord of prosecutions if they went into the centre. They will not because they generally pursue drug suppliers; although they would probably find suppliers hanging around outside the centre ready to provide more drugs to the unfortunate addicts who go there.
Drug addiction reduces the dignity of the human person, and it is wrong for a government to cooperate in the evil of reducing a person's dignity. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights speaks of the inherent dignity of the human person. States are supposed to ensure that people reach the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. To enact legislation that allows people to harm themselves—and I submit that every time someone ingests heroin or any other illegal drug they are harming themselves—makes them less able to live as a normal person, to aspire to serving the community, and to do things for the benefit of the community.
Unfortunately I have had a lot of experience with drug addicts in the courts as witnesses. They do not possess the normal dignity of the human person. They are often half asleep or in a trance and they make unreliable witnesses because from time to time they have memory problems, illusions or delusions. They set a bad example to their peers, younger persons, other members of society and their family. When people are affected by drugs they are a risk if they drive a car or use machines. For a government to support this centre rebels against Australia's duty under the Single Convention to fight drugs and the harm done by narcotics. It sends the wrong message to the community and weakens the resolve of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute drug traffickers.
Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies have had their own problems with the proceeds of heroin. I was involved years ago in the prosecution of former Detective Roger Rogerson. The evidence in that case was that he had opened some bodgie bank accounts with the National Bank in the city with about $120,000. We led evidence to say that it came from the sale of heroin. He was ultimately convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and spent time in jail. Various other senior police officers have also spent time in jail for their involvement with drugs. The head of the South Australian drug squad, Barry Moyse, was involved in recycling heroin and spent a long period in jail. Drugs weaken resolve, and the police and the community generally should be trying to get people off them.
There are methods of getting people off drugs. Naltrexone and drugs of that sort have helped people lose their will and their addiction for drugs, and to get off them. That is the sort of thing that should be encouraged. We should be rehabilitating these people, trying to help them repair their lives, trying to help them raise their dignity so they can do useful things for the rest of society. The injecting room only undermines the will of the community, and of police and law enforcement generally, to prosecute the suppliers, traffickers and importers of drugs.
The money would be better spent on anti-drug use, drug education, or setting up more drug courts. I support the Drug Court. I have been involved in matters that have gone before the Drug Court and then to the Court of Appeal. I believe the Drug Court is doing quite a good job. Perhaps we should have more drug courts. Drug addicts are encouraged to rehabilitate themselves, to give up drugs, and to stop breaking and entering and doing armed hold-ups. They are monitored by the court and by the people working for it, including the various social workers and others who look after them and try to cure them.
Taking drugs all the time—even if you are using clean needles—does not cure you; it just makes you keep taking the drugs. Why not open up whisky dispensing rooms for alcoholics? Why not give them high-class Johnnie Walker to drink every night? Will that do anything for them? Of course, it will not. It is absurd. But it is the same principle. I simply cannot understand how the Government thinks it can serve the State properly by allowing something that is wrong and evil to be available at government expense, with government help.
I wish to refer to some principles that have been well established in law, principles that deal with how governments are not entitled to authorise something that is normally illegal. Members may well remember the Ridgeway case, in which informer couriers brought heroin into this country on behalf of police officers, to supply to drug buyers here. Police officers were involved in the importation and customs officers turned a blind eye. In 1995 the High Court said that the conviction of Mr Ridgeway could not stand, on the ground that importation of the heroin by law enforcement officers was illegal and therefore the evidence of the illegal importation of heroin should be excluded on the ground of public policy—which would have led to the prosecution being unable to prove a necessary element of the offence. Justice Gaudron said that by illegally importing the heroin, the Australian Federal Police had incited or participated in the commission of the offence with which Mr Ridgeway was charged and hence the proceedings were an abuse of process.
In 1984 the High Court examined the case of A. v Hayden . At that stage Hayden was a Minister of the Hawke Government. In that case, at the direction of the Commonwealth various persons participated in a security training exercise arranged by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service [ASIS] in Melbourne. Four of those persons were Australian Secret Intelligence Service officers, six were civilians under part-time employment with the service for training, and one was an army representative. The exercise, to free a hostage from a hotel room, went astray, and damage was done to the hotel, which was quite well known. Doors were ripped off, holes were put in walls, and all sorts of other damage was done. The hotelier was not aware of any of this. Thereupon the State police tried to prosecute these men, but the Commonwealth would not tell them who they were. The High Court was quite strong in saying that the Commonwealth was not entitled to prevent the State from investigating its crime and that it could not claim privilege regarding the names of the people who had caused the criminal damage. As Sir Anthony Mason said, it is very difficult to believe that the Commonwealth could justify what was done: superior orders are not, and never have been, a defence in our law. Sir Anthony Mason said:
For the future, the point needs to be made loudly and clearly, that if counter-espionage activities involve breaches of the law they are liable to attract the consequences that ordinarily flow from breaches of the law.
In that case a Labor hero, Justice Lionel Murphy, said:
Under our Constitution and laws, Australia is a law-abiding member of the community of nations.
In Australia it is no defence to the commission of a criminal act or omission that it was done in obedience to the orders of a superior or the government. Military and civilians have a duty to obey lawful orders, and a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Any defence that conduct out of which this case arose was in obedience to orders which were not apparently unlawful may rise in other proceedings, but is not now pertinent.
The High Court was saying that governments should not and cannot authorise illegal conduct. As I said, the State may be able to say by way of legislation: Here is a little oasis where illegality can occur, but everywhere else the activity is illegal. However, the State cannot protect the people working there from Commonwealth action. If the Commonwealth wants to lock them all up for breaches under the criminal code, it is able to do that. It simply demonstrates the absurdity of continuing this fiction, this lie, that this is a trial. It is not a trial; it is a usurping of the drug laws, whereby every other citizen is liable to be prosecuted.
If I take heroin or any other item outside of this injecting room and use it, I am liable to an offence. The message we are sending to our citizens, particularly our youth whom we wish to protect, is a bad message. Today the House passed legislation to ensure that the paedophile register is intact and covers all relevant offences and penalties. Both sides of the House want to protect children from paedophiles. We should want to protect children from drug addiction and from the use of drugs. [ Extension of time agreed to.]
With regard to illegality, I have referred to the Hayden and Ridgeway cases. I refer also to the D'Arrigo case in Queensland. In that case police investigating stolen car rackets actually had a man stealing cars for them so they could sell the cars to people in the rackets who wanted to buy and recycle the cars and change the serial numbers. The police had an agent employed. The court said the police cannot authorise a breach of the law; indeed, the Minister cannot authorise it.
The Swaffield and Pavic case in the High Court dealt with the entrapment of witnesses. The court ruled that it was a breach of public policy to infringe the rights of an accused person. The accused person having already been interviewed and warned that he did not have to answer any questions, and having exercised his right not to answer questions, the evidence later obtained by way of an undercover police officer could not be used because the police officer was a person in authority.
Probably one of the most celebrated cases is the House of Lords decision in the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Pretty. Diane Pretty was dying of cancer—and she wanted to die. She was a member of the English Exit group, the equivalent of our Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and she wanted her husband to assist her death. Her husband asked the Director of Public Prosecutions for an indemnity in advance of the crime so that he would not be liable for aiding and abetting suicide, which is a crime in England. The House of Lords said it is not permissible to authorise an illegality in advance of a crime. As demonstrated in the D'Arrigo case, a person cannot be given an immunity to commit a crime. We are doing that with this drug injecting room. We are breaching the traditions of the criminal law in a very bad way, and our behaviour has been criticised by the United Nations.
I also refer to the House of Lords decision in the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brown , in which men mutilated each other. The court said that was a breach of public policy, that people cannot mutilate each other—just as people cannot mutilate themselves. It used to be a bit of a trick played by malingerers who wanted to exploit the workers compensation system. They would cut off a finger at a joint and they would get so many thousands of dollars in compensation for it—until the courts got onto it and said that a person cannot deliberately mutilate himself or herself for the purpose of getting compensation.
A number of laws say that people such as prostitutes and drug traffickers cannot sue for unpaid fees. CES v Superclinics was a famous case involving a woman who was not diagnosed as being pregnant by the after-hours clinic. When she was finally diagnosed she was about 24 weeks pregnant. She gave birth to the child and later sued for the loss of opportunity to have an abortion. When medical union defence lawyers claimed illegality, Justice Newman ruled that a person cannot be awarded damages when what that person was going to do was illegal. By a 2:1 majority the Court of Appeal said in this case they could not be sure that the intended act would be illegal, but they did not disagree with the principle that has been established in the High Court that a person cannot recover damages for illegal conduct.
Admittedly, in the case of Dugan and the prison system he was held not to be able to recover damages because he was a convicted felon. There are rules at law that are being totally breached by this legislation and it is sending out bad messages. I ask the Government to think again about this issue. This trial is not saving addicts; it is not getting them off drugs. It is just encouraging them to take more drugs. Of course, they never get enough drugs in Kings Cross so they go elsewhere to places such as Cabramatta where they can buy more drugs. They go to Kings Cross so they can get a bit of attention from time to time. It is bad. They should not be encouraged to continue taking drugs, they should be trying to be cured. Plenty of people are trying to cure drug addicts in our society. Dr Stella Dalton used to give evidence for the prosecution about the evils of heroin. That has not changed: heroin is still an evil drug. Yet this Government, in a sense, is making the use of heroin sound good. It is encouraging the use of heroin and setting a terrible example for young people and drug addicts.
I have seen a case in which a woman was charged with an offence and she had her baby with her in court. The woman was a drug addict and the poor baby had withdrawal symptoms. One could see the poor baby shivering and shuddering because her mother was a drug addict. That is part of the illegality. Just recently a young fellow who kept on taking drugs killed himself. Such tragedies cause great hardship to the addicts' families. We must not encourage these people to stay the way they are with a lack of dignity as drug addicts; we have to try to get them out of the drug cycle.
There was recently controversy over this Government appointing as a director general a man who had been a heroin addict and a heroin importer but who had rehabilitated himself. The Opposition challenged his fitness for the job because of his background. We have not been dirty about it, but the fact is the man was rehabilitated. That is what we should be encouraging others to do. I am not saying I agree with his appointment to that position, because I think it sends out the wrong messages to children in the school system. Nevertheless, he was a success story of someone who rose above his addiction. We are not helping people get out of drug use by just encouraging them to take drugs in this injecting room and keeping it open for more and more years.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [8.01 p.m.]: The aim of the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007 is effectively to extend the so-called trial period of the drug injecting centre that would otherwise have finished on 31 October 2007 and to extend that period to 31 October 2011. The bill also imposes a review of the economic viability of a licensed injecting centre in certain circumstances, and I will speak about those circumstances later. There is no doubt that many people have different views in respect of this matter and they hold those views for valid reasons; they are sincere in their views in respect of what is a very difficult situation for many people. There are many people who in their own minds have a very clear conscience, as well as it can be, who hold the view that the so-called safe injecting room at Kings Cross is a perfectly reasonable exercise of the Government's authority to legislate. They support the notion of the injecting room and the way it responds to the drug issue that is, of course, a plague on our community. Many people have indicated that they will support this legislation. I do not fall within that classification, but I respect the right of people to hold that view.
The purpose of my brief comments tonight is not to undermine the credibility or ability of people to come to a decision to support the injecting centre, nor to be critical of the decision that they have reached. As far as they are concerned, they have reached that decision for very good reasons. I certainly cannot support the bill. I do not believe for one moment that there can be any such thing as a safe injecting room. I believe that any place where people can go to inject heroin and ultimately cause harm to themselves, and in many cases death, is at the end of what is to many tragic addicts a long slippery path downhill that finally leads to death. It certainly destroys many lives. Not only the victim of the tragic situation suffers harm; members of their family, their friends, their associates and the community at large suffer harm. The need for people to buy drugs often causes them to commit serious criminal offences. I emphasise the point that there is no such thing as a safe injecting room because heroin will ultimately kill an addict or certainly cause harm to his or her body.
I have not attended the injecting centre at Kings Cross and I have no comment to make on the way it is operated. But I have heard?and I have no reason to disbelieve it whatsoever?that the people who work in the injecting centre carry out their roles in a professional way. That is not an issue so far as I am concerned. As I understand the way the centre operates—and I may be wrong—the addicts bring their own heroin and then have the benefit of injecting it in this facility. It is said that it is a way for addicts to shoot up in a medically supervised room. Again, I say I do not believe any addict can shoot up in a safe environment, but these are medically supervised rooms rather than the so-called dirty back alleys or back streets. People who support the concept of an injecting centre say that if people are going to shoot up it is preferable that they shoot up in these clean medically supervised rooms. That argument has a certain amount of logic, but they are not the only two options.
The options are not simply that of shooting up in a dirty back alley or in a medically supervised room. The third option is not shooting up at all, and that option should be taken into account. Through the process of education, rehabilitation and treatment people could be encouraged to not shoot up at all. Society has an obligation to treat people to discourage them from shooting up, and the setting up of such a facility abrogates that responsibility. It is not right to simply say there are merely the two options of a medically supervised room or a back alley. As I have said, the third option is to simply not shoot up.
We as a society must do everything we can to encourage addicts to get off drugs rather than to merely provide an injecting facility. I understand the argument will be made that this facility is only part of the ongoing solution. Although many deaths tragically occur in the back streets of Sydney, information given to me by the Family Council of Victoria shows that the overwhelming majority of heroin deaths take place in the home, not in the streets. According to figures from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, between 1996 and 1998 74 per cent of overdose deaths occurred in homes and of 410 cases only 30 were due solely to heroin. Most were due to drug cocktails, mixes of various drugs and alcohol along with heroin.
Well-meaning people have put forward the argument—and I do not challenge their integrity or right to do so—that setting up injecting rooms is the compassionate thing to do. However, I agree with the Family Council of Victoria, which suggests that this is probably a furphy. We should ask the question: Is it really compassionate to assist someone who is enslaved to a dangerous illegal drug for the rest of their life or should we try to free him of his addiction? In other words, are we being more compassionate to a drug addict if we try to keep him off drugs? What is compassionate about keeping people in chains to lethal drug addictions?
This existence of this facility effectively says that the Government has approved of this safe injecting room, people cannot be arrested there and it is medically supervised?by implication, we are literally suggesting that it is okay to shoot up. However, people who continue to shoot up will die. People will not become better by injecting heroin into their blood. It cannot be regarded as compassionate to provide and endorse a facility for people to shoot up with heroin because heroin will finally kill. Compassion cannot be used in the argument that it is more compassionate to provide this facility than not to provide it. I believe the aim of getting addicts drug-free is more compassionate. There is no compassion in keeping people in the chains of lethal drug addiction for life. [ Extension of time agreed to.]
The original injecting room legislation provided that the trial period would commence on 1 May 2001 and continue for a period of time. That trial period was further extended and was to end on 31 October 2007. Under this bill the trial period will now expire on 31 October 2011. Earlier the Leader of the Opposition asked why the legislation has been brought before the Parliament on several occasions seeking extensions of the so-called trial period. One must wonder why this legislation is called the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill. In 2011 will we be asked to permit a further extension of the trial period, which by that stage will have been in existence for 10 years?
If the Government is serious, why does it persist in referring to it as a trial period? Are there some doubts in the minds of the perpetrators that it is working or is it really a way of trying to make it less hard-hitting, a way of trying to sell it to the community, that this is only a trial? There must be some point in time where someone draws a line in the sand— If the Government is serious, why does it persist in referring to it as a trial period? Are there some doubts in the minds of the perpetrators that it is working or is it really a way of trying to make it less hard-hitting, a way of trying to sell it to the community, that this is only a trial? There must be some point in time where someone draws a line in the sand—I would not suggest that this be done—and states, "This is no longer a trial. We will set up a permanent injecting room." I would not support a permanent injecting room, nor would many others. Some would support it, and that is their prerogative. I query why we keep extending the trial period. I would have thought that by now there would be adequate statistics to indicate whether the trial has been a success. It has been going since 2001.
The 2003 government-funded evaluation of injecting rooms reported a total capacity of 330 injections per day. The current number of injections per day is reported as 230. On 2006 figures there are on average of 87 heroin injections per day, 38 per cent of the 230 daily injections?87 injections amounts to just 26 per cent of the total capacity of 330 injections per day. Other people seeking prescription drugs make up about 48 per cent of the current 330 injections per day. This facility has cost something like $15 million since it first opened. Another $10 million will be spent running it if the trial is extended to October 2011. That is a total of $25 million, a huge expenditure on a single facility. That sum could be deployed on a whole range of support treatments and rehabilitation programs. The question must be asked whether the outlay of $25 million is justified. Is the result such that the Government should continue, or should the money be spent elsewhere? Again I refer to Dr Shane Darke of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, who said:
Every time you inject heroin you are taking a risk that you will die. Anyone who tells you there is a safe way to inject heroin, well that's a lie.
If this bill is passed, the message we are sending is that the Government has set up a safe injecting room where people can inject with some degree of safety. Shane Darke is right. Every time you inject heroin you take the risk that you will die. Heroin is illegal and is banned because it is dangerous. As the member for Epping correctly said, the Government has set up a place where people are able, in supervised facilities, to inject, first, an illegal substance and, second, a dangerous substance, and every time they inject it they run the risk that they will die.
Is it the role of society to lull people into a false sense of security and allow them to continue to inject such a substance? With the greatest of respect to the proponents of this legislation, we must look clearly at the problem, at ways of overcoming it and at rehabilitation and detoxification, so that people do not have the desire to inject or shoot up. There is an alternative for those people. One thing is certain. There is no future in heroin: it will eventually cause death.
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [8.21 p.m.]: I will not speak for long on the bill—not merely because it is past the Leader of the House's bedtime but also because a great deal of the opposition to this bill has already been set out. I was a member of the joint committee that was set up to examine the proposal for an injecting room in Kings Cross. I hope that every member of this House, before voting on this bill, will have read the joint committee's recommendations. The proposal to reject the injecting room was supported by Opposition and Government members who had the opportunity to visit various drug-affected areas and hear evidence from experts. As I said, a number of members of the present Government voted against the establishment of the injecting room, having heard the reasons for and against it.
The proposal here is that the ends justify the means and that illegal activity should be condoned. No-one in this House has said that heroin should be legalised, but people enter the injecting room after being part of an illegal transaction, that is, obtaining a supply of heroin or some other drug. The State is turning a blind eye to that criminal activity. Do the members who want to support the injecting room also want to support an injecting room in each of their electorates? Heroin addicts are present in all of our electorates and they require fixes to satisfy their addiction within hours, not days. As the member for Baulkham Hills just pointed out, simply to have heroin injected in a so-called safe environment is not a solution to the problem. In a few days that person could suffer an overdose and die in a back street somewhere. The injecting room will have done nothing to deal with the addiction.
We should look at the number of referrals from the injecting room and the number of rehabilitation centres that require additional funding. Nobody gets off heroin unless they are motivated to do so. A number of proven rehabilitation centres require funding from this Government to support worthwhile programs under which motivated people can get off their heroin addiction, yet they have been unable to obtain the funding. The member for Sydney claimed that the injecting room is not taking funding away from the health budget because the funding comes from the confiscation of criminal assets. But this is an opportunity cost. If the Government provides funding to this heroin injecting room, that funding is not available to help people in Wagga Wagga, in Bega, in the Tweed or in Cronulla.
Mr Daryl Maguire: The satellite dialysis service in Tumut, a million dollars would easily pay for that.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I have to agree, a million dollars would certainly pay for that.
Mr Daryl Maguire: And what about The Rock school? They stole a demountable classroom.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: They stole a demountable school? That is appalling.
Mr Allan Shearan: Just talk among yourselves.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: The House is entitled to be provided with that information. I am sure members on the Government side would find what happened to that demountable school an education in opportunity cost. I am sure the member for Lake Macquarie would realise that heroin addicts have to be motivated to get off the drug and deal with their addiction. Taking heroin leads to highs. Many people who are addicted to heroin have no motivation to get off it because they enjoy it. This injecting facility is provided for them by the State at taxpayers' expense. The members who support the injecting room should apply for a similar facility to be located in their electorates. Every electorate in the State would have heroin addicts and they would find it easier to have an injecting room in the areas in which they live—such as Lake Macquarie, Maitland, the Hunter or the Central Coast—rather than have to travel to Kings Cross. The argument by members that this facility should be provided to the citizens of New South Wales is equally applicable to the provision of a facility in their own electorates. I refer to the recommendations of the United Nations and experts on the international scene. In its Annual Report 2006, the International Narcotics Control Board stated:
Drug injection rooms (sometimes called "drug consumption rooms") continue to operate in a small number of countries, mainly in Europe—
They operate in New South Wales as well—
The Board reiterates its position that, insofar as they are facilities where persons can abuse with impunity drugs acquired on the illicit market, such rooms contravene the most fundamental principle of international drug control treaties: drugs should be used only for medical or scientific purposes. The Board urges the Governments of all countries where drug injection rooms are in operation to take prompt action to close those facilities and to provide appropriate services and facilities for the treatment of drug abusers, in accordance with the provisions of the international drug control treaties.
That is not what is happening here. The facility contravenes that advice. That is why it is a trial. This trial has extended over a number of years and the Government now wants to extend it for another four years. As the member for Baulkham Hills said, the collation of four years of statistics, knowledge and experience should be sufficient to reach a verdict on the trial. The board also stated in its report:
The spreading heroin abuse in Australia has been followed by a rising death toll among heroin abusers. Therefore, the focus in that country should be on measures to reduce the number of heroin abusers. Some States unfortunately challenge the policy of the federal Government and choose to support policies that run counter to the treaty obligation limiting the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes only, by establishing heroin injection rooms where illicitly obtained drugs can be injected under supervision.
That is clearly what has occurred under the Carr and Iemma governments.
Mr Daryl Maguire: It is bought from drug peddlers.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Of course it is. That is the only supply.
Mr Daryl Maguire: That is right. It is making them rich.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is enriching those people and making a more profitable trade for them.
Mr Frank Terenzini: Just talk among yourselves.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: The member for Maitland says, "Talk among yourselves." I would have thought he would be interested in the information being provided by the member for Wagga Wagga. He would remember, as an officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the truth is the objective. He should think of this debate in terms of the State and the public of New South Wales being the jury. I am sure he would not want any of the evidence that could be put before that jury curtailed. My instruction to the member for Maitland as a new member would be to follow the truth when dealing with all matters that come before the House and to seek to illicit all the evidence that is available. I am sure the member for Maitland is very grateful for the intervention of the member for Wagga Wagga in this debate.
Mr Frank Terenzini: Very grateful.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I acknowledge the interjection of the member for Maitland that he is very grateful. I am sure the member for Wagga Wagga sends his thanks. To return to the leave of the bill, for the reasons outlined in the report that was provided to the Parliament and for the reasons given by members on both sides of the House, I oppose the bill.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [8.35 p.m.]: I place on the parliamentary record my continuing opposition to the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. When we debated this matter in 2003, the 18-month evaluation report into the injecting centre spelt out alarming figures. At the time it indicated that of the 4,000 registered users of the centre, fewer than 50 people had taken up referrals to deal with their drug dependence. According to the latest review into the centre, 9,778 users are registered with the service, with a monthly average of 138 new clients being registered. I am concerned that whilst the evaluation report into the centre goes on to say that 391,000 visits were made for the purpose of injection and an estimated 191,673 public injections were averted, the report in no way clarifies the outcomes of the referrals from the centre. It goes on to say there were 6,243 referrals to other services, but no outcomes were provided in relation to these referrals.
When the 18-month evaluation was done, 1 per cent of registered users had been referred to other services and took up that support. I suspect the figures have not changed. Given that this was cited as one of the major reasons for establishing the injecting centre, it is important to note that the Government has failed in this area. By failing to refer clients, the centre is failing the very people it should provide for. Again, throughout the life of the trial, the 18-month evaluation made it clear that there should be public debate on whether there is opportunity to divert the proceeds of crime into other forms of rehabilitation, such as the provision of 100 rehabilitation beds in non-government agencies.
We have never had that public debate; the Government has not allowed the community to have it. That public debate is sadly lacking because there are issues about the resourcing of rehabilitation services and area health services around the State. In the Greater Southern Area Health Service the per capita spending on drug rehabilitation is very low. At the time of the 18-month evaluation, per capita spending on drug rehabilitation was about $8 per person. With all of that in mind, the fact that on average 138 new clients are registering for the service, there are almost 10,000 registered clients and the Government cannot confirm the uptake of referrals for rehabilitation—but we suspect, given the information provided in the 18-month evaluation, that it is about 1 per cent—I am not willing to support this measure in the same way that I did in 2003.
This smoke-and-mirrors nonsense about it being a trial is well and truly over. I am sure the community must be starting to question the Government continuing to argue that it is a trial. It is no longer a trial; it is a permanent fixture in our community—not only in the Kings Cross community but also in the New South Wales community as a whole. The Government should be honest about that. There is no merit in calling it a trial when that is no longer the case. I reiterate that my principal concern is that the Government does not provide information through its evaluation process about the level of uptake of referrals. Former registered users are not coming forward and saying that they have been rehabilitated as a result of using the service. That issue is being lost in this debate and I wish the Government would be honest about the title of the legislation.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.41 p.m.]: This debate has gone on for a considerable period. Although I do not wish to keep members from other important business, I feel that I must make a contribution. In the past two weeks members have had the opportunity to exercise two conscience votes: one tonight about the injecting room and one on stem cell research. Last week I listened intently to the debate on stem cell research, as I did when we debated legislation dealing with that issue a number of years ago. Last week I listened to the debate and the constructive and considered suggestions of members on both sides of the House and cast my vote accordingly. I changed my mind about the way I would vote and supported the research.
My vote was not firmed up until the last hour of that debate, when the Minister responsible for carriage of that legislation swayed my mind. When she replied to the debate I agreed with her comments. I am pleased that I supported that legislation and I hope that our support will result in breakthroughs in medical research to cure those diseases for which we all work so hard to raise funds, be it for cancer research, renal dialysis research or research into other diseases that afflict mankind.
I have also listened to this debate intently but I have not changed my mind—for myriad reasons. Having listened to all speakers intently I have noted that not one has introduced new evidence to suggest that this trial has been successful. The data and statistics that have been made available by the various interest groups that support the centre have more holes than a sieve. When they are analysed, as speakers both for and against the bill have done, the argument in support of the bill is not strong. That is because what is happening in that injecting room is aiding and abetting a crime. Members might say that that precinct is protected by legislation, and I understand that. However, these drug addicts, whom I understand and for whom I have compassion, must fund their habit. What do they do? Those who are wealthy can find a means to fund their need; money is not a problem.
However, those whom we have heard about who are destitute and caught in the revolving-door syndrome of drug use and need must find funds. How do they do that? They steal from their family and friends, and they break into houses, stores and banks. They do whatever they can, whether it be legal or illegal, to fund their habit. That goes on day and night. They also prostitute themselves to fund their habit. They have pimps who take the cash and pay them in drugs. That is happening, and this injecting centre is aiding and abetting it. That is part of the reason I cannot and will not support the legislation. I have heard parents plead for us to keep their children safe and alive until they decide they want to give up this dreadful habit. They are pleading for that help because there is very little access to rehabilitation in this State.
In my first term in this Parliament I participated in the Drug Summit and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an education because it was an issue I had never explored and a place I had never been. In a methadone clinic I met people from all walks of life. I talked to people who had been caught in the revolving door for many years about the fact that very few ever managed to kick the habit. I talked about their health needs and they talked to me about the effect that drugs have had on their lives. At that time I voted against the legislation because of the information put to me.
The community of Wagga Wagga and the Riverina can be proud of the fact that we went home and established a rehabilitation centre called The Peppers. That centre takes up to 12 clients who, once they have detoxed—either at home or at a centre—can access rehabilitation services. In New South Wales those services are very rare. I look at the good that could be done to help these addicts kick their habit with the funds that will be required for this so-called trial, which will run for 10 years. I also look at the good that could be done to help families to get their loved ones off drugs and back into a reasonably normal, healthy life. I acknowledge that not everyone who accesses rehabilitation services will succeed. Drugs are a terrible curse. We are talking about illicit drugs, but other drugs also cause grief and health problems. We all know about them, but they are legal and in this debate we are talking about illegal substances.
I said at the outset that I could not support this legislation. Unless the Minister can offer something new in her reply that will convince me that we are not aiding and abetting a crime by assisting these people to inject illicit drugs and helping them to commit crimes to fund their habit and that this bill will in some way increase participation in rehabilitation—and the evidence that I have referred to clearly indicates that that is not happening—I cannot support this legislation.
After listening to the debate I picked up on one point from members who support the bill. I do not agree with them, but I respect their views and I accept their right to cast a vote in the way they think will best serve the needs of people who are addicted to drugs. However, in all good conscience I cannot cross the floor and support this legislation. I ask members who may be reflecting upon the sentiments I have expressed to consider that if they aided and abetted a robbery that occurred on a street corner, or the ram-raiding and stealing of an automatic teller machine, by hiding the criminal or assisting them in some way, they would be aiding and abetting a felony
However, they will be supporting this injecting centre legally. I guess they will sleep well at night in the knowledge that as we sit here in the warmth of this building, as members are dining in the dining room, and as others are in their offices perhaps listening to this debate, people are finding ways to finance their habit so that they can go down to Kings Cross and inject a lethal substance—which undoubtedly will eventually kill them, as will other products if they are abused. I ask members to weigh that aspect heavily on their minds when they cast their vote.
Many members have made a positive contribution to this debate; I know they have thought about this issue a lot. I certainly have, as I have said. I hope that in some way members will consider in the future that this $2 million can be spent far more wisely and productively by giving people access to rehabilitation, rather than helping them support their habit. The statistics clearly reveal that the desired results are not there, that the Government is not removing these people from the revolving door of drugs. I ask members to think long and hard about their vote, and to vote against the legislation. Perhaps at a later date we can have a debate about how the funds that are going into the centre can be spent more wisely.
On the last occasion I raised the fact that this could be a precursor to similar centres throughout New South Wales. I understand that some people who are addicted to these drugs will never get off them, and I am sure that most of us have compassion for those people. But there are other ways in which they can be treated. There are other ways in which their habit can be managed, if we think long and hard about it and are prepared to take the hard decisions. But no-one has done that. All we have done is suggest that this one place in New South Wales is the only place that we should trial for 10 years. It is simply outrageous that a trial should run for 10 years.
I ask members: What are we going to do for the addicts in the towns, villages and hamlets across New South Wales? The people in Kings Cross will get looked after, but what about the others? How will we manage them? If members give in now, they will continue to give in. The next bill to be introduced will propose the establishment of shooting galleries elsewhere in New South Wales. That issue must also weigh heavily on members' minds.
In conclusion I ask members: Would you want an injecting centre near you? I ask them to view the shooting gallery, as I have, and to view a rehabilitation centre, as I have for Peppers. I assure members I would much rather have a rehabilitation centre next door to me, or in my home town, than have a shooting gallery and all the problems associated with it. I have spoken for a little longer than I intended, but I hope my remarks will at least encourage a considered reply from the Minister. I am more than prepared to listen to her comments in reply and welcome any new information she can introduce into the debate.
Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [8.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their passionate contributions to this debate. The trafficking and misuse of illegal drugs saddens and angers every fair-minded person. Debate surrounding the most appropriate strategies to combat the illegal drug trade and the prevention and treatment of addiction is bound to inflame emotions. The New South Wales Government is strongly committed to a comprehensive response to the complex problem of drug abuse in our society. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre is just one component of our response.
The Government shares the Leader of the Opposition's strong commitment that drug strategies should be about more than keeping people alive, that they should be about helping them move into treatment and rehabilitation. The incontrovertible evidence is that out of over 2,100 overdoses managed at the centre there has not been one fatality or serious injury. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre plays a vital role in achieving our shared goal by reaching out to the most marginalised and entrenched drug users in our community, building relationships and trust, and keeping them safe with direct clinical advice and support until they reach a point where they will accept a referral into drug treatment.
The Leader of the Opposition questioned the evidence regarding the follow-up of referrals in the most recent evaluation report. The card system the member for Ku-ring-gai referred to was found to be unreliable because only a small percentage of clients followed through. As the member for Wakehurst rightly pointed out, no medical facility can guarantee that a patient will follow up on a referral. This does not call into question the quality of that service.
What we do know is that the brokerage system has allowed the uptake of referrals to be tracked in a reliable way. This system found that 84 per cent of clients followed through on their referral and attended the drug treatment service. This is an impressive figure, given that clients using brokerage are the most entrenched and disadvantaged and face the greatest health risks. Drug treatment referrals from the centre are made to a range of facilities, including Odyssey House and the Salvation Army. We will continue to support the centre in its efforts to engage more clients in ongoing treatment through the referral system.
Members opposed to the bill have raised a number of issues, and I will now address them. Many members raised the concern that the centre sends a message condoning drug use. Nothing could be further from the truth. The New South Wales Government supports the trial of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre as just one component of a much broader drug policy. We recognise that there is no single solution to drug use and that a range of approaches must be pursued if we are to have any impact. That is why the Government has committed more than $406 million in additional funding to drug-related law enforcement, treatment, education and prevention, including an additional $296 million for treatment since the 1999 Drug Summit.
With regard to the police response to drugs, in 2006 New South Wales police laid more than 20,000 drug-related charges, almost 1,000 of them related to heroin. As members opposite are aware, no funding for the centre has been diverted from these valuable initiatives. The centre is fully funded from the Confiscated Proceeds of Crime Account. The Leader of The Nationals referred to the spectre of the "ice scourge". All sensationalism aside, I can assure members that the use of methamphetamines in the centre has in fact been a relatively low 6 per cent over the last six years. I can also assure members who have informed their argument with quotes from the tabloid press that the trained medical staff at the centre closely supervise clients and scrutinise the substances being used. People using the centre are asked what drug they intend to use and whether they have used any substance in the past 24 hours.
Regardless of members' obsessions with what is being injected I remind them that the centre was established to reduce all injecting-related harms, not just those associated with heroin use. A number of members also focused on the idea that the centre acts as a honey pot for drug-related crime in the area, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Once again I refer members to the most recent report of the highly respected New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found no evidence that the centre has had an adverse impact on rates of drug-related crime. The bureau also found that the actual level of drug-related loitering has not increased.
With regard to public amenity the fact remains that 68 per cent of local businesses in a randomised cross-sectional survey support the centre. The member for Davidson asked me whether I support a medically supervised injecting centre in my electorate of Cabramatta. I am on the public record as opposing such a move and my position on that has not changed. The Government remains committed to one centre and one centre only—that is in the legislation. Kings Cross is unique: it has a long history as an illicit drug centre with high levels of drug overdose and a transient population. This is a profile that is not shared by my electorate of Cabramatta, nor by any other electorate in New South Wales.
As so much of the information that informed this debate has been provided by Drug Free Australia I will take a moment now to address some of that organisation's more outrageous claims. It is not surprising that that organisation's information is so misleading, given it has disregarded every one of the five evaluation reports since the first report was released in 2003. Drug Free Australia claims the centre encourages dangerous experimentation with drugs. Far from encouraging dangerous experimentation, the latest evaluation results suggest that the centre's clients are taking fewer risks and experiencing fewer overdoses.
Equally mischievous is the claim that the design of the centre encourages the induction of new drug users. Under the internal management protocols for the centre, first-time users are not eligible to use the centre. The centre's qualified and highly professional staff assess all clients before they are able to register. The independent evaluation found that these protocols are working well, that very few first-time injectors attempt to access the centre, and that those who do are consistently refused entry. I take particular issue with the member for Castle Hill's assertion that teaching drug users how to avoid contracting hepatitis C and HIV is in fact teaching them how to be better junkies. The centre is concerned with keeping these people safe and alive until they are ready to access treatment, even if the member for Castle Hill is not so concerned.
The most recent evaluation also directly links to the centre's presence a significant 80 per cent decline in ambulance call-outs to suspected overdoses in Kings Cross. In relation to Drug Free Australia's claims concerning the legality of the trial, it should be noted that the most recent legal advice is that continuing the trial of the centre will not be in breach of international treaties. In fact, a 2002 United Nations Office of Drug Control report concluded:
It would be difficult to assert that in established drug injection rooms it is the intent of parties to actually incite or induce the illicit use of drugs or even more so to be associated with, aid, abet or facilitate the possession of drugs.
The centre is part of a diverse approach to finding a solution to a problem that plagues almost every society across the globe. We will not give in to simplistic solutions and narrow-minded ideology. A number of speakers have noted that these drug users are not part of anonymous statistics but sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and friends. It is our duty as members of Parliament to do all we can to help them and reduce the impact of illicit drugs on our society. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 54
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Coombs
Mr Corrigan
Mr Costa
Mr Daley
Ms D'Amore
Mrs Fardell
Ms Firth
Ms Gadiel
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Mr Harris | Ms Hay
Mr Hazzard
Mr Hickey
Mrs Hopwood
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally
Mr Khoshaba
Mr Koperberg
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Dr McDonald
Ms McKay
Mr McLeay
Ms McMahon
Ms Meagher
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Oakeshott
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Piper
Mr Rees
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mrs Skinner
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Terenzini
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Baumann
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Ms Goward
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher | Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Humphries
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr O'Dea
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Provest
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr J. D. Williams
Mr R. C. Williams
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:46:52 : Update this page