Drug Summit Legislation

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.00 p.m.]: I wish to make a ministerial statement about the Government’s Drug Summit legislation. Honourable members will be aware that today I gave notice of the Government’s Drug Summit legislation, and the exposure draft of the bill was made available for members to review. The bill will provide for one - and one only - trial of a medically supervised injecting room in Kings Cross, subject to permission being granted by the Commissioner of Police and the Director-General of Health; additional bail conditions, with rehabilitation being an optional condition for bail; and the introduction of some measures to further control drug problems in some of our major institutions, in particular, to allow the introduction of drug sniffer dog teams to patrol in juvenile detention centres.

In respect of young offenders, we will be allowing minor drug offenders under the age of 18 to be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act - that is, youth conferencing - and some tougher powers in relation to a range of appropriate matters. This legislation is a small part of a comprehensive response to the Drug Summit. Most honourable members will recall that the Government announced a $93 million package as its response to the Drug Summit.

The spirit in which this legislation is being put before the House follows the spirit of the Drug Summit. Honourable members have widely different views about the way in which society and government should respond to the drug problem, but there is widespread support in the community for two fundamentals: that is, that drug dealers - those who profit from the illicit drug trade - must be caught and punished, and that drug addicts should be given the chance to break their habits and rehabilitate themselves. Within that $93 million package there is provision for a further 23,500 addicts to be treated and rehabilitated over the coming months and years.

With regard to the most contentious aspect of the legislation - that is, the provision of a medically supervised injecting room trial at Kings Cross - I emphasise that that proposal is a small part of a substantial package. There is consensus about the problem, about the urgency to deal with it and about the two core issues - the punishment of drug dealers and the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Within that consensus there is a view of a clear way forward. The Government has taken the view that it will introduce trials. One of those trials, one small part of the package, is this medically supervised injecting room proposal. I emphasise that the bill will provide a sunset clause. The medically supervised injecting room trial will cease after 18 months, and adequate mechanisms will be put in place for the assessment
Page 1164
of that aspect of the Drug Summit response, the other measures envisaged in the legislation, and the administrative decisions made parallelling the legislation.

With regard to the injecting room trial, the Sisters of Charity Health Service is now discussing the location and operation of the centre with representatives of the local community. The New South Wales Police Service has produced guidelines which rule out any no-go areas outside the medically supervised injecting room, and police officers will continue their crackdown on drug dealers throughout the Kings Cross area and throughout the State. On a number of occasions at the beginning of the Drug Summit the Premier said that the Government would rather do nothing at all, as serious as the problem is, than do something to make the situation worse. That is why we have taken the approach we have.

We will institute a series of trials of compulsory treatment measures, of the injecting room, of youth conferencing for minor drug offences and of a range of approaches, the planning for which is already well advanced. I understand the leaders of other parties will be responding to this statement. I emphasise that the objective of putting this legislation in exposure draft form to members today and by giving it to the media, and therefore exposing it to the community, is designed to continue the Government’s approach.

We appreciate that there are still differences of opinion and that there is still controversy about the approach to these issues. We know members will want to go back to their constituencies, back to the public, and reconsider their positions. We have made sure the bill is available to parties and individual members well in advance of the debate that will be conducted in this place so we can continue the transparent and consultative approach that has been taken on this issue.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.08 p.m.]: The Opposition looks forward to the exposure draft bill being formally presented to each member of this Chamber - indeed, to each member of both Houses. It is important for honourable members to recognise from the outset that what we are being given will not necessarily be the final product. What we are being given could well be an ambit claim of certain issues and there could be some shifting one way or the other in respect of the matters raised in the bill. I would like to think that is the case and that there will be some opportunity for modification with regard to the exposure draft before it goes into its final form. If it does not - if there is no opportunity for consultation with all sides of the debate - the talk about consultation and negotiation is merely a farce.

We must be given an opportunity to consult and to effect changes to this bill before it is debated in this Chamber. I do not have a copy of the bill, which I know is available in the community, so I do not know its full implications. From listening to what the Minister said earlier, I would like to think that he would enter into debate on this bill with an open mind. The exposure draft bill should be open to negotiation and finetuning before it is debated in this Chamber.

The Minister raised a number of key aspects relating to the exposure draft bill. He referred to shooting galleries. The medical expression that is used to denote these galleries is "medically supervised safe injecting rooms". I am sure that that description is more palatable to the community. However, let us be honest. Debate concerning shooting galleries is like debate concerning the goods and services tax: no matter how many times we try to rename that tax the community knows it as the GST. We can do what we like but we should stick to its marketing name. The marketing name in relation to this issue is "shooting galleries". We must not try to dress it up by using medical terminology. "Shooting galleries" is the term to which the community is accustomed.

I place on the record at the outset the Opposition’s long-standing opposition to this shooting gallery trial. When this legislation is presented in this Chamber, the Opposition, like all other parties representing interest groups, will refer the matter to its constituents and debate the issue before finalising its position. It is worth placing on the record the Opposition’s long-held view that it is opposed to shooting galleries. The Minister made reference in his ministerial statement to the question of bail.

I hope that this legislation is not another vehicle through which bail will be watered down. People who are using drugs and who commit a crime might say, "The only reason I committed the crime is that I am addicted to drugs. I needed the money to supply my habit." When debate on this legislation finally occurs we do not want an acceptance of the fact that it will be used by those people as a vehicle through which to escape their responsibilities and their accountability to a court.

Bail provisions in this State must not be watered down. To use an expression used by the Minister, some measures are used to control drugs in juvenile centres. However, drug use at juvenile
Page 1165
centres is out of control. I am sure that the Minister will concede that there are some terrible problems. The Minister and I both come from an area that is well-known for its drug problems.

I hope we will see a toughening up of the Government’s approach towards ensuring that drugs do not find their way into juvenile centres. We must not allow that to happen willy-nilly, which seems to be what is occurring right now. The Opposition is concerned about other aspects of this legislation. When the legislation finally comes before the House reference will be made to certain definitional aspects, for example, what constitutes a "minor drug offence". I hope that we will not see an expansion of the definition of "minor" by this Government.

I place on the record at the outset that the Government raised the drug issue prior to the State election. At the Drug Summit reference was made to the fact that the Government wanted to achieve a bipartisan approach to the drug issue. It is worthwhile noting that there has been no consultation, no negotiation and no discussion in regard to the presentation this afternoon of the exposure draft bill. I first found out about it - and it is not the fault of the Minister; there was probably just a glitch in the system - 15 minutes ago when I was told it would be presented in the Chamber. The Government has not acted in a spirit of bipartisanship. That is not what the community wants.

The community wants confirmation of the fact that the path down which we are travelling will be extensively traversed before the Parliament takes a final position on drugs. We look forward to this debate. We look forward to any piece of legislation that is serious about cracking down on drug dealers. Up until now we do not believe that this Government has been serious on this issue. The Minister referred to injecting rooms as being the most contentious aspect of the exposure draft bill. We are not just concerned about injecting rooms; we are keen to see much more negotiation. Is the Minister prepared to examine these issues and to capitulate to the views of the community rather than simply proceed with his own views?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.15 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party takes this opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement concerning the issuing of an exposure draft of the Drug Summit legislative response bill. I am pleased that the Government is giving us a period within which to consider this bill. However, the impending two-week parliamentary recess is too short.

If the Minister wants the bill to be dealt with on the first day that Parliament resumes and he wants the bill passed as quickly as possible, he will not obtain the support of all honourable members. We must have time within which to consider this piece of legislation. The Minister stated that the purpose of the bill is to establish medically supervised injecting centres. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition: the term that is used in the community - it is a term that people understand - is "heroin shooting galleries".

"Shooting galleries" is the term used by drug addicts and by people on the street. People know what we are talking about when we use that term. They might think that a "medically supervised injecting centre" is a naltrexone centre where people are given treatment to get off drugs. The two terms are very different. A rapid detoxification naltrexone centre is not what this Government is proposing to establish; it proposes to establish medically supervised injecting centres. The public might be confused; they might not be aware of the distinction; and they might wonder whether a shooting gallery and a medically supervised injecting centre are the same thing. There is a difference between the two descriptions. It is dangerous to use a term that is unclear and that can be misleading to the public.

On two occasions I have referred in this House to the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board and to its strong criticism of this proposal. I asked the Government whether it was responding to those criticisms. The Government’s response seems to be that it will just go ahead with its proposal. It has ignored the criticisms of an official, authoritative body - a body established by every nation in a co-operative effort in the war against drugs.

The Government appears to be ignoring the International Narcotics Control Board in the same way as it has ignored the Opposition. I do not believe that it has spent enough time in obtaining a bipartisan approach on this issue. We have learned in the past that, if we do not get that approach, we do not proceed very far. We saw that happening in relation to the Aboriginal issue, which the two parties turned into a political football, and the Aboriginal people suffered. In this case the Government is using the drug issue as a political football and the drug addicts, those who want to get off drugs, will suffer.

Who will be held responsible for the first overdose death at a shooting gallery? No matter what provisions are contained in the bill, people will feel obliged to sue someone over the death of their
Page 1166
son or daughter in a government-sanctioned centre. I do not wish to be a wet blanket but I am aware of a death that occurred in the toilet at the Wayside Chapel shooting gallery. I am sure that similar incidents will occur in the shooting gallery's 18-month trial period. That will be a tragedy. As a result the powerful drug lobby in this State will tell the Government that it can prevent those drug overdose deaths simply by supplying to addicts the correct quality and quantity of heroin. That would be a persuasive argument - one which I will not accept - when a death occurs in a shooting gallery.

I warn the Government that it is now going down that pathway. The drug lobby has already stated that it believes heroin should be supplied to addicts: in other words, a drug trial should be part of the shooting gallery arrangements. Another area of concern is that the bill will repeal the Drug Offensive Act 1987. From my recollection that legislation was introduced by the Labor Government under Premier Barrie Unsworth, who was totally opposed to drugs. During his time as Premier he promoted a bipartisan approach on the drugs issue. It will be a pity if we lose the Drug Offensive Act because of the way the Government is moving on this matter. I am concerned about the impact of the repeal of that Act, the abolition of the New South Wales Drug Offensive Council, the abolition of the Drug Offensive Foundation, and the abolition of the Drug Offensive Foundation Fund.

Is this bill really a surrender bill? Is this the white flag? Are we saying we cannot beat the drug epidemic - that we are giving into it and are going to take this approach? There has been criticism of the use of the terms "offensive" and "war against drugs". It is not a war against drug addicts. It is a war and an offensive against drugs. We cannot give up on that battle. There must be a war. There must be a battle. In the interests of our youth and children we must win.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.21 p.m.], by leave: I have had the opportunity to read the proposed legislation quickly. It appears to be a timid response to the Drug Summit, which came up with strong recommendations, many of which were unanimous. There was the usual opposition from the hard-core conservatives, and from this draft exposure it would appear that the Government has bowed to them. The licensed supervised injecting room - or shooting gallery, as the Opposition prefers to call it, using New York slang - will operate for an 18-month trial period and will be strictly controlled.

The legislation allows one single licensed injecting room to operate, and that injecting room will be closed after the trial period unless the legislation is amended. During that time reports will be issued on its progress. I suspect that it will be set up to have little chance of success. However, if we do not try this method of saving lives we will never know whether it is possible to save those lives. We have to try it to know whether it works. If it does not work, then there will be no safe injecting rooms. I point out that according to the proposed legislation the Government will crack down on existing non-legal informal injecting rooms. Therefore, we might end up with far fewer injecting rooms than already exist. Lives are currently being saved through those informal injecting rooms.

We may end up with one licensed injecting room operating under strict control and no other injecting rooms. The legislation might cost more lives than it saves, but at least we will find out whether this single licensed injecting room, which presumably will be located in Kings Cross, where users congregate, will work. The bottom line is that we have to save as many lives as we can. If this will save lives, so be it. We are not promoting the use of heroin or any other drug that people inject, either amphetamines or cocaine. No government in its right mind would do that and certainly no-one in this Chamber would do that. However, we must acknowledge that some people will and do use drugs regardless of the laws.

While they continue to do so in defiance of the law, at least with this legislation we can hope to save lives in the meantime, bring them back into mainstream society and help them kick their habits, if they want to, and resume their place in society, perhaps as employed citizens. Many drug users are in a terrible state. Many drug addicts come from broken homes where they were abused as children. Some may have had an alcoholic father and a disturbed mother. They may have been rejected, and that is the reason they started taking drugs. These people are sons and daughters, sometimes from broken families, and they need to be looked after.

They are not all hard-core criminals. Unfortunately, with the present state of the law, they often rob people to obtain money to buy their drug supplies. The huge increase in the women’s prison population can be attributed to property crime by drug users. In the past 12 months the women’s prison population has increased by almost 50 per cent as a result of women taking drugs and not being able to pay for their habit. Many of them are single mothers and are being incarcerated. They are the fallouts from the drug problem.

Page 1167

Alternative solutions to the drug problem must be considered. Around the world the war on drugs is being lost. Where legislation is hardest, the war being lost is worst. In places where the law is hardest, their are more casualties and higher rates of drug usage. Where the law is more compassionate towards these people, the problem is being reduced. Many countries in Europe are moving towards safe injecting rooms because they know they work; they are saving lives and getting people off drugs and back into the mainstream. Drug users are ordinary people who have a problem. We have to help them kick their drug problem by any means possible, and try to save their lives.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.25 p.m.], by leave: I acknowledge that we are moving forward by trialling safe injecting rooms for drug users, although we are concerned about a number of aspects. The New South Wales Drug Summit, which was held in Parliament in May this year, brought together members of Parliament, community representatives, experts and professionals, those who inject drugs and families to find innovative approaches to address the impact of drugs in our community. The Drug Summit was a pivotal event in this Parliament and it was a sincere attempt to move forward on a number of issues that will have great import for the community to help save life and increase the quality of life of all involved.

It has been interesting to the hear some of the issues in this debate. This is an attempt to move towards the concept of medically supervised injecting rooms and away from the concept of shooting galleries. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is to attack and hold the Government responsible for any lives that may be lost through this proposal - from my experience with the safe injecting room inquiry, no lives were lost in those European establishments; in fact many were saved - I ask him to take responsibility for those lives lost in the gutters of this city at present. That is the present appalling state of affairs. This is an honest attempt, through the Drug Summit and subsequent moves by the Government, to redress this situation. Whilst many criticisms can be made, it is important that we take that into account.

A medically supervised injecting room will save lives by reducing overdose deaths. It will provide opportunities for referral to treatment services. It will facilitate safe needle disposal and support efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C. Australia has been at the forefront in preventing the spread of hepatitis C compared to the situation that occurred in Canada in recent years. Without treatment communicable and deadly diseases spread throughout a population. My experience with the safe injecting room inquiry clearly shows that this type of medically supervised facility will reach out to those who are most marginalised from health services and will provide a gateway to rehabilitation, treatment programs and other health services.

The facility will reduce the incidence of people injecting in public places and will provide a place for the safe disposal of injecting equipment. The injecting room will be medically supervised, and that will help to reduce the number of people injecting drugs. It will facilitate the safe disposal of injecting equipment, and the Greens believe it will increase the level of protection for the overall community. Considering the health of those who inject drugs, such forward steps by the Government will help maintain the health of drug users. We hear time and again that we need to keep these people alive until they can be rehabilitated. Rather than people mixing water from toilets and gutters with their drugs, they will be medically supervised.

It is important that we work towards an innovative and varied approach to the problem. It is important that the Government recognises the need to move away from punitive sanctions, particularly for first offenders and young people, for experimentation with drugs or for carrying non-traffickable amounts of drugs on their person. The drug problem should be regarded as a medical and community health problem, rather than a criminal problem. Parliament should approach positively the direction the community can take, and adopt a proactive rather than a reactive role. I and the Greens look forward to dealing proactively with the drug problem. We look forward to saving lives. We are uncomfortable with the lack of clarity about the role of police in these matters.

I am hopeful that we will develop a strategy that will be one of many, be it safe injecting rooms, or the ability to carry small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use without fear of criminal sanctions, that promotes a more humane attitude when dealing with prohibited drugs. I certainly am not talking about supporting drug dealers in the community, but, rather, about allowing drug users to carry sterile injecting equipment and use safe injecting rooms. We need to change community attitudes so that drug users can be helped. The result will be fewer deaths and, perhaps, a better and more humane understanding of those who are trapped in the vicious cycle of drug addiction.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.31 p.m.]: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Page 1168

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.32 p.m.]: I table the exposure draft bill.