Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1635 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The government is of the view that the new victims services scheme will provide a broader, and perhaps more effective, level of support. This is an arguable point, particularly regarding the current version. I do hope that members will seriously consider supporting this bill. I would be very pleased to have a round table discussion on the issue, in the hope that at least we could find some common ground and improve the situation for all victims of crime.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries ) adjourned.
MR KAINE (11.22): Mr Speaker, I move:
That before the proposed "supervised injecting room" trial commences, this Assembly requires the Government to provide details of the following:
(1) the assessment criteria against which the trial is to be adjudged a success or failure;
(2) the process to be used for the evaluation, including specification of data to be used and methods of data collection and recording, from day one of the trial until the tabling of the report in the Assembly;
(3) the name(s) of the independent, disinterested organisation, person or persons who will conduct the assessment of the trial; and
(4) the date on which the results of the assessment will be tabled in this Assembly.
Mr Speaker, we now know for sure that we will soon have in this city a shooting gallery for heroin addicts. The minister announced the trial; some time ago he said that it would go ahead. He fixed a location for it on the old QEII site, which was the site for a home for nursing mothers. It has now been funded in the budget. And yet there is by no means unanimous support either in this place or in the community for this so-called trial to go ahead. The support was far from unanimous when the trial was voted upon on the floor of the house, and I think that the outcome of that vote very largely reflects community views towards this issue. In other words, a very large part of this community does not agree with having such a facility in our city.
That being so, it must be pretty obvious to the minister and to the government that such a controversial trial must be conducted under such circumstances that the outcome, success or failure, can be clearly established. There is no room for any lack of clarity in the way the trial is to be conducted, how and by whom the evaluation of the trial is to be carried out, and on what criteria the assessment is to be made.
Proponents of this trial, including the minister, have consistently referred to it as being a scientific trial. However, in what way it is to be scientific has not been described. Given that it is highly controversial and that many people in our community are not convinced of the efficacy of such a trial, it is incumbent upon the proponents to demonstrate unequivocally that it is being conducted on a scientific basis and that the outcomes will not be judged on some subjective opinion or coloured interpretation of the outcomes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .