The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.29 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for a very moving contribution to the Drug Summit Legislative Response Amendment (Trial Period Extension) Bill 2007. I know that he thought about this issue long and hard. Although I disagree with his conclusion to some extent, I agree very much with the sentiments he expressed and the reasons he gave for his conclusion. Certainly, in part, his conclusion is one many of us can come to. This is the second occasion on which I have had an opportunity to speak in support of the injecting room. On this occasion, honourable members have a conscience vote. I remind all honourable members that we are fortunate in our democratic parties of progressives and conservatives to be able to respect each other's points of view, not only in this Chamber but also outside it, and within the party. That applies not only now but also down the track. We come to these decisions based on our backgrounds, our understanding and perhaps our diversity of experience.
That is the wonderful thing about the Liberal Party. I know Labor members may disagree, but one of the reasons why I am a Liberal is because members of the Liberal Party are progressives, they are conservatives and they are somewhere in between: we are able to agree and we are able to agree to disagree. It seems to me that I am a moth to a flame when it comes to a conscience vote. However, when I looked at my previous contribution in support of the injecting room I found that I have not changed too many of my views. In fact, when I looked back on some of the misgivings I had about the referral rates and other issues, I have been encouraged in my decision.
Why do I come to a decision to support what to many honourable members seems to be a facility to encourage drug use? This issue is about people, it is about humanity and it is about having an understanding of humanity. It is about us saying that we value every life if we possibly can; that we value lives that are travelling well by today's standards and by our standards, but we also value those who have fallen by the wayside or those who are ill in a whole range of ways. It is not just an opportunity for us to say we value the lives of some people and not others, because the people who are clients of the medically supervised injecting centre are someone's son, daughter or loved one. They have grown from the completely innocent life of a small child to a life that is not pure. Many clients of the injecting centre may have criminal pastimes to support their habit; some of them are not nice people, and some probably are; and some of them will have slipped from a high-value life to the point of almost no return.
It is for those people who are on the very fringes of society and at a point where they are almost beyond retrieval that this centre serves a purpose. It is not the only answer to dealing with the drug crisis in our country but it is one of a whole range of measures. To be political for a moment, I might say that this Government needs to lift its act in taking more initiatives in regard to dealing with drug and alcohol addiction. Last week we moved towards some amendments in relation to severe drug and alcohol dependency, but there is much more we could be doing and much further we could go. I know and have visited drug-dependent people. The families whose lives have been disrupted by drugs may surprise many people. Addicts are not just marginalised people living in the suburbs who suffer from social disadvantage; addicts can come from quite wealthy families. In fact, the most recent contact I had was with a mother whose son is the same age as one of my sons. This woman said to me that one minute her son was winning prizes at sport, the school captain, almost the dux of school, and the next minute he suffered a drug overdose in his car on his own somewhere on the outskirts of town. Had there been an intervention of any kind that incident may not have happened.
Many young people drift to inner-city areas. They go to Kings Cross because they know they can procure drugs. But perhaps that is where they can go to find a safe haven, if there is such a thing. The drug problem was almost out of control in Kings Cross when the injecting centre commenced after the Drug Summit. This is the right service, it is appropriately placed and it is appropriate for the clients that use it. However, it is not the only service we should be offering. I do not support an expansion of the service. The service is needed, and I am glad it is there. Many people are alive today because of it. If the injecting centre had not been established Kings Cross would be no different than it was prior to the introduction of the centre.
On many occasions I have been with drug addicts through their detox process. I have been through squats looking for drug addicts. I have been with parents who have pleaded with police to keep their children incarcerated so they at least stay off the streets and do not overdose. I understand the anguish of people who have the addiction and of their family and loved ones. I understand the powerlessness they all feel. Perhaps the referral rates for clients who go to the injecting room are not as high as they should be. However, honourable members need to understand the types of clients who are going to the centre?they are not the types of clients who are going to be referred immediately, they are at an end point. If we can deal with a number of their other complex health needs—many of them have multiple and complex health needs—if we can solve some of those problems and help them get parts of their lives together, they can be referred on. Let us not forget that other agencies do not have a huge success rate with referrals of drug addicts either. One has to compare apples with apples.
Drug addicts require many opportunities and many referrals into rehabilitation, and they fail more times than they succeed. It is not a perfect situation. The statistics for one group of people cannot be compared to the statistics of another. These people have to be offered referrals to rehabilitation, and we have to keep trying. If they are not referred and if they do not present to particular services, it is because it is just not the right mix of service provider for them. It does not mean that the injecting room has failed as such.
The centre has addressed some serious public health and public order problems in Kings Cross related to street-based drug activity. It is a unique facility that solves unique problems that other programs do not address. It has success stories. The centre's clients are long-term drug users—people on the margins of society—who have not only a drug-addiction problem but many other health and mental issues. The centre and its amazing staff—whose compassion and humility is an example to us all—are saving lives. Some members are extremely critical of the centre yet they have never been there. They have no idea what it is like inside. They have never spoken to staff or talked to clients. If they visited Kings Cross they could not find the centre in a million years because it does not stand out; it is not a honey pot. The centre has no visible street presence.
I am tired of the virtual hysteria from people who do not understand the centre and its role and who have never been there. It is a health facility. People either support facilities that use a range of measures to deal with drug addiction or they do not. People either support harm minimisation, in all its facets, or they do not. Harm minimisation has worked incredibly well to solve some huge problems with HIV-AIDS. It has certainly improved the amenity of places such as Kings Cross, where disused needles used to litter the alleyways and innocent people could sustain needle stick injuries. This legislation is about harm minimisation, health and a centre that does not condone drug use. It is a medical facility. I remind members that it is called the "Medically Supervised Injecting Centre". It is not a "shooting gallery"—as one of my colleagues likes to call it—but a medical centre. The centre has a clinical, not a party, atmosphere, and caring, compassionate and professional staff. I will relate some of the centre's successes to the House. I have a few anecdotes. Lucille says:
I would like to say a huge thank you to all the wonderful people involved in the centre. I signed up when you opened and now 18 months later I am saying my goodbyes to everyone—hopefully for good.
Shona said:
I'm on methadone now and I'm not going back to the streets any more. I'm looking forward to looking for a place to live and starting TAFE soon—I'm changing a lot at the moment.
Sam said:
Thank you for this service. Lots of my friends have died on the street from overdoses at very young ages. If this service had been around then I'm sure many of them would be alive today. Thank you for this safe, clean and life saving centre.
Drug users often lead very lonely lives. People do not set out to become intravenous drug users; it is on no-one's must-do list. People drift into drug addiction, often very quickly. Intravenous users feel alienated, dirty and alone. Another client of the centre said:
? when I discovered the MSIC I felt safe—safe to know there was help if I needed it.
Chella said:
I hope this service is continued—it is so important to keep people clean and alive until the day they feel they can attack their problems. Too many people die in the gutter—keep up the good work guys. It's good to see that people do care about us—the supposed "dregs of society". We are real people too—with mothers and fathers and people that love us. Your lack of judgement is appreciated.
Contrary to what some members have said, not only drug users appreciate the centre. Many in the business community and many local residents are glowing in their praise of the injecting centre. At a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre Symposium in July last year Tom McMahon said:
When we purchased the Regents Court building in August 1987 we felt that Kings Cross had sunk about as low as it could go. Sadly it continued to get worse into the mid-nineties. The strip actually got to the point where it was controlled by criminals and thugs, the area was awash with drugs and violence was commonplace. Profitable businesses were based on sex or drugs or often both.
Thank God for the Royal Commission without which recovery was impossible.
Mr McMahon went on to explain how Kings Cross had regenerated. There is a real estate boom and people now appreciate living in the area. He said:
Our guests constantly complained about public shooting up, needles left everywhere on the street and drug related assaults often in the middle of the night. Many guests couldn't stomach it and checked out. Ambulance sirens were heard day and night.
He said that he has noticed continuing improvements over the past five years. He continued:
The number of drug affected people on the streets have dropped to almost nil and we are thrilled to see more children in the neighbourhood. Now we have most nights with no sirens ?
Several other businesspeople talked about how centre staff, working in conjunction with the police, have improved the area's amenity. That is a good result for local residents and for businesspeople. I know that people have differing views on that point. Perhaps some businesspeople who are complaining about having to close their doors might consider the impact of extensive and ongoing road closures and repair work on their businesses. Perhaps their businesses simply were not relevant in the King Cross environment. Businesspeople speak of how addicts used to overdose and be found slumped in doorways. There have been big improvements since then.
Some organisations, such as Drug Free Australia—which Mr Ian Cohen mentioned—are peddling misinformation about the centre. Drug Free Australia argues that heroin injections constitute just 26 per cent of the centre's total injecting capacity. When I asked centre staff about this they told me that a range of drugs have been injected during the 391,027 visits that injecting drug users have made to the centre in the past six years. Some 62 per cent went to the centre to inject heroin; 12 per cent, other opioids; 14 per cent, cocaine; 6 per cent, methamphetamines; and 3 per cent, benzodiazepines. In the past year about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of clients visited the centre to inject heroin and other drugs in this opioid class; and about 350 opioid-related overdose cases were treated successfully. I suggest that in a different environment they would have been 350 fatal overdoses.
The proportions of the respective drugs injected at the centre have fluctuated widely and reflect their relative price and availability in the Kings Cross area. The centre performs an important function in monitoring the varieties and availability of drugs. It can tip off local police and other health services about impending dangers and indicate what drugs people are using. As Mr Ian Cohen said, 76 other supervised injecting facilities currently operate around the world in eight different countries. We must remember that the objective of these centres is to prevent and reduce injecting-related harm associated with the use of all injectable drugs, not just heroin. We should recognise also that intravenous drug users are usually poly-drug users—in other words, they use a range of different drugs and are therefore at risk of contracting HIV-AIDS, hepatitis and so on.
Drug Free Australia claims that experimentation with dangerous drugs dominates the statistics. In reply the centre states that it relocates injecting episodes that would otherwise occur in unsupervised, less safe and often very public circumstances. Clients are only able to inject once per visit, reducing the risk of dangerous drug combinations, making the centre far less risky than other places. Criticism has been made about the definition of "overdose". The centre states that it uses the internationally accepted clinical definition of opioid overdose syndrome, which has been documented. People who overdose face an increased risk of damage if left too long and the centre's nursing staff are in a unique position to diagnose these events and deal with problems more quickly than if a paramedic had to be called.
Drug Free Australia also claims that a drop in ambulance call-out rates in Kings Cross is not the result of the injecting room but the result of a heroin drought. In reply to this argument, the centre states the most recent analysis of ambulance callout data demonstrates definitively that the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has had a significant impact on ambulance call-outs to drug overdoses in Kings Cross over the past six years, comparable to that attributable to the national heroin shortage and that a substantial proportion of the overdoses managed at the site, which were 2,106, would have resulted in significant morbidity had they occurred elsewhere; in other words, some of those people would be dead.
Given the lateness of the hour I will not go into great detail. The centre has more information on its website available to honourable members, and the centre's staff would be delighted if honourable members visited the facility they are so passionately opposed to. They might get further information that refutes a number of claims by Drug Free Australia. Claims have been made that the centre is not capable of saving even one life a year. I do not know how anyone can say that when in six years 2,106 people have been treated for overdose without one fatality. Potentially a large proportion of those people have been saved.
Many statements have been made about the design of the facility being available for people to share. Centre staff have said they accommodate injecting episodes that would otherwise occur in an unsupervised, less safe environment, and staff are trained to identify people who might be first-time injectors, which would be very rare in the Kings Cross area. Most users are long-term users, on average about 33 years of age, with a 14-year history of drug taking. Staff members do not encourage people to go into the centre to use drugs to shoot up for the first time. It is a facility for long-term users.
There is no question in my mind that the injecting room has been successful and that it should have the support of the House. The bill contains a provision to cover the situation if, over time, the need for the services of the centre decreases. It would be wonderful if we reached the point where we did not need this centre. It would show that the centre had served its purpose and that we were successful in the war against drugs or that perhaps the area was not as attractive for injecting as it once was.
I ask honourable members to think long and hard about harm minimisation and the sorts of people who use the centre. We should be a compassionate, decent and humane society. We should remember that taxpayers' dollars are not funding the centre. To suggest otherwise is just another myth. Money would be better spent on a range of other services but we cannot just deny people in need. To do so is to deny humanity, which we should support. I know the people who developed the centre, including Reverend Harry Herbert, Executive Director of UnitingCare, a compassionate man, who stated:
I am proud that UnitingCare has been able to play an important role in operating the centre. We want to help people get off drugs. But while they are struggling to do that, caught up in the chaotic vortex of drug addiction, should we just abandon them to their fate? No, the essence of Christianity is to help our neighbour, even when we don't approve of everything our neighbour has been doing. The premature deaths of drug users have enormous ripple-on effects among their family and friends. Often whole communities are affected. Keeping drug users alive and safe while at the same time encouraging them to change their lifestyle is a most creative work.
Other members have mentioned the Medical Director, Dr Ingrid van Beek, who is internationally recognised. We are very lucky to have her involved in the centre because she has done an outstanding job. A year ago she wrote:
The MSIC has made contact with a significant proportion of the local drug using population, many of whom had not previously had contact with health services.
Most had not had contact with existing health services for drug users prior to attending the centre. It is estimated that the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre made contact with more than 70 per cent of the local drug-using population in its first 18-month trial period, and its coverage of this population will have increased further since then. These people are now in a cycle that enables them to be referred whereas previously they were not attending any health services. The centre is a gateway, indeed an improved gateway. When it was initially established, the referral processes were in need of improvement and that has happened. People are being referred on to other programs such as naltrexone, morphine and other services.
Honourable members should also remember that many people are estranged from their families and that, where it is safe to do so, the centre works hard to reunite people with their families. Honourable members have dispelled many of the other myths but I am sure we will hear these myths repeated as fact again in the debate. However, I encourage members to go to the centre's website to see the value of this service. I extend my personal and sincere thanks and admiration to the staff and board members. I remind honourable members of the environment in the Kings Cross area before the centre was opened. There was undesirable drug-taking behaviour in and around the streets.
The successes of the centre are the reason we should support its continued operation. Several years ago members agreed to give this project the go-ahead in an attempt to reduce the scourge of drugs on the people of New South Wales, particularly in Kings Cross. The centre has made an enormous difference to the lives of users and enabled thousands to reconnect with society, many with their families. We have the opportunity once again to take the lead and allow the fantastic and necessary work that is being under undertaken at the centre to continue. I ask members to consider the thousands of families in New South Wales who may be helped by this service when their son or daughter, or friend, or mother or father seeks help from this service and takes a giant step forward to making a real change for themselves. Last week I was reminded of some of the very wise statements of Robert Kennedy. In conclusion, I quote one of them:
Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.
I urge honourable members to support the bill and allow the work of the Medically Supervised Injection Centre to continue.
