Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4190 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

pay for their heroin habit. I lay the blame for this proposal going ahead squarely at the feet of Mr Stanhope. He spruiks in the media that he is being courageous by taking it on. Mr Stanhope, the community will not look upon you as a hero for doing so.

Without the Labor Party, the shooting gallery would be a non-issue. The Labor Party, supposedly the party representing the workers, was not even prepared to meet the police union, let alone listen to their concerns. The members of the police union are going to be the ones at the centre of the practical application of the shooting gallery Bill, but their union could not even get a start with the leader of the Labor Party when it contacted his office to set up a meeting in the lead-up to this debate. The same Mr Stanhope said that he wanted to take the community with him on this issue. I am sorry, Mr Stanhope, but you have rushed ahead. You broke before the starter fired his gun and left everyone else behind. I have lost count of the number of times that Mr Stanhope has pointed the finger at the Government for being arrogant. The same man has turned his back on the police union and the community.

The Canberra community does not trust the drugs agenda being driven by this Assembly. It started with the decriminalisation of cannabis - the lazy decriminalisation of cannabis that has never been reviewed. All that it has achieved is an increase in the level of tolerance to drugs. The Bill that we are debating tonight will take this tolerance to a higher level.

In short, the proposal contains a myriad of holes and practical problems. It would be dangerous for the Assembly to support this proposal, especially as Jon Stanhope and Michael Moore are trying to plug those holes on the run. They are involved in a reckless rush to implement the shooting gallery. This type of project should not be imposed on the community in such a slap-dash manner.

The fundamental legal concerns are alarming. There are grey areas for police and citizens that should be clearly outlined in the Bill before it is debated, let alone passed. For example, there are no clear guidelines on entry requirements for those people under 18 years of age. There is no clear direction on what will constitute the so-called safe zone for carrying drugs. That leaves the door wide open for dealers to get away with their illegal trade.

Then there is the charade of it being a scientific trial. How can it possibly be a scientific trial when there is to be no control over the type of substance that is brought into the premises? There are too many variances. Calling it a scientific trial is merely a feeble attempt to pose as complying with our United Nations treaty obligations.

Last week I had a conversation with the father of a heroin addict. He has watched heroin destroy his daughter's life and he said that having a shooting gallery would not help his daughter. A shooting gallery feeds the habit. It does not encourage abstinence and that, in my view, is the basic failing.

The other point I would like to mention is the probability of addicts using such a facility. I have had quite a deal of experience with drug users. I know that when they are craving for their next fix the place it occurs in is not an issue. More than half the overdoses happen at home. They just want a hit and they want it now. Setting up

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .