Add to:
Do you support the RTA's proposal for a footbridge across the Spit?
| Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007 |
| Wednesday, 20 June 2007 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [12.10 p.m.]: I will be brief, but first I want to commend the Liberal Party for being the only party to show that it values community and conscience over party boundaries in this debate. I strongly believe that the party that shows itself to the community as a fighter for its interests over party interests will be the one that restores faith in the parliamentary system. I concur with the Leader of the Opposition in his assessment of the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. The trial has two critical elements: the first is to provide a safe injecting environment and the second is to make referrals for those in desperate circumstances to, ideally, provide a path towards rehabilitation. In many respects, it is a window of hope for those with none. In relation to the second element, the hardworking and professional staff at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre have been let down. Whilst they have clearly made a difference in dealing with day-to-day overdoses, the facts of the referral system are an empty tale. Broadly, the referral system has made only a very limited impact. The three key referrals of the centre are for health care, drug referral, and social welfare assistance. Over the past six years there were three health care referrals for every 1,000 visits, two drug referrals for every 1,000 visits and, most importantly, two social welfare assistance referrals for every 1,000 visits. If the two people in 1,000 visits referred to social welfare services were clearly identified as being rehabilitation successes, there would be cause for a celebration of life redeemed. However, the report is strangely silent on this point, for which it should be condemned. What happened to those referrals? What systems are in place to support them? Where are the case studies that show that the system is working? Unfortunately, after six years the statistics lead to a void. I thought that after six years we would have a robust analysis of agreed performance indicators—of what we were trying to achieve—and, at the very least, tangible examples of the success of the entire system. I implore the Government to implement such rigours should the trial continue. There must be process mapping, performance indicators, and more resources to assist those working at the front end. Without this sort of accountability, we are letting down the very people we are trying to assist in this trial. Whilst in the absence of rehabilitation outcomes and very limited referrals to date I cannot support the bill, I can only hope that real-life tales of redemption are seen should the trial continue. Add to: Write Comment
|
||||||
