My views on this issue have been well known since day one. Out of respect to my colleagues, I will limit my rhetoric on the Drug Summit Legislative Response (Trial Period Extension) Bill. I have said it all in the past and I will continue to say it: This is a bad idea and it was a bad idea on day one. I will talk about why this has come about. It is an exercise in raw politics by the Labor Party. It is extraordinary, and one must go back a little in history to understand that.

My views on this issue have been well known since day one. Out of respect to my colleagues, I will limit my rhetoric on the Drug Summit Legislative Response (Trial Period Extension) Bill. I have said it all in the past and I will continue to say it: This is a bad idea and it was a bad idea on day one. I will talk about why this has come about. It is an exercise in raw politics by the Labor Party. It is extraordinary, and one must go back a little in history to understand that.

This taxpayer-funded shooting gallery—as I have called it in previous years, because that is what it really is—is on the edge of my electorate. If members of Parliament vote yes for the extension of the trial, may I suggest they also tell their electorates whether they want one of these centres in their own electorate. That is the issue.

One of the previous speakers in this debate said the centre is unique. There is a very good reason for that: it defies common sense, and it has done so since day one.

Over many decades Sydney has become the drug capital of Australia. One of the reasons drug use has become such an issue for our young people, especially over the last decade, is that the Government has been so soft on drugs. I will refer to a couple of examples of that in a moment. The issue here in talking about drug addiction is treatment. That is a point we have made year after year. The resources should be put into drug treatment. It is a point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as Shadow Minister for Health, has pursued every single year in her shadow portfolio. The Government can crow about the fact that it is now putting some resources into drug treatment, but it resisted doing so—and it resisted so many times over so many years.

The overview explains the purpose of the bill. It states:

Part 2A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (the Principal Act ) currently permits the operation and use, under licence, of a single medically supervised injecting centre, but restricts the period during which such a licence can have effect to a trial period that started on 1 May 2001—

I believe, at that time the trial was to be for 18 months—

and finishes on 31 October 2007.

The object of this Bill is to amend the Principal Act:

(a) to extend the trial period so that it will finish on 31 October 2011, and

(b) to require a review of the economic viability of a licensed injecting centre in certain circumstances.

The Bill makes a consequential amendment to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2006.

I say to members of the Lower House—not the Upper House, where there can be all the academic posturing in the world, but the Lower House, in which members have to speak for their electorates—Make a decision. If you are going to support this bill, stand up and say you are happy to have an injecting room in your electorate. That is what the Labor Left wants. They put on the record before that they want injecting rooms in other electorates. I ask members to tell people whether they are happy to have them in their electorates.

There has been much debate about the trial period versus a permanent facility. On 7 June, in response to a question from the Member for Coogee, the Minister for Health made reference to the scientific nature of the injecting room. She said:

"The choice to continue with the trial, as opposed to making the facility permanent, is based on the legal requirement for this facility to be one that is operated for medical and scientific research purposes." 

The Member for Monaro, who is at the table, attacked the debate on this last night. The Member for Castle Hill made the point that this is exactly what the Japanese Government does with whaling. That is how the Japanese justify killing whales: they say it is scientific research. Why do they do that? Because there are conventions that countries have signed up to, and they have to deal with it. I suggest members opposite have a look at the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. They should have a look at the arguments the Japanese Government puts up for sticking to the excuse of scientific research. It is exactly the same argument that the Labor Party uses here. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 makes the point:

"The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary:  .... Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs."

There has been no shortage of international pressure on New South Wales to stop this trial. The International Narcotics Control Board Annual Report 2000, when speaking about Australia, stated:

"Some States unfortunately challenge the policy of the federal Government and choose to support policies that run counter to the treaty obligation limiting the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes only, by establishing heroin injection rooms where illicitly obtained drugs can be injected under supervision."

The report calls on New South Wales to stop the practice.

Recommendation 9 referred to in the International Narcotics Control Board Annual Report 2006 refers to injecting rooms and states:

"such rooms contravene the most fundamental principle of the International drug control treaties. "

Members have referred to all sorts of reports on the trial. It is instructive to read the most recent report on the injecting centre. The only important point in the report is its reference to the number of client visits. The report states:

"There were 391,170 visits to inject with an average of 181 visits per day over the six-year period. The most commonly injected drugs over the 6 years of operation were:

° heroin 62%
° cocaine 14%
° other opioids 12%
° methamphetamines 6%
° benzodiazepines 3%."

As we have all seen in recent times, there has been an increase in the injection of ice. What is the biggest problem confronting everyone in New South Wales, and indeed Australia, in relation to drugs at the moment? Ice. What is happening with those who use ice? They are proving to be a violent problem not only for police but for the community generally. Where are some of them using ice? They are using it in the Government's injecting centre.

Members have spoken about visits to the injecting centre. I have visited the injecting centre at some time over the last few years—I cannot remember when. But I have also visited the centre a number of times and watched from outside. I say to members: If you have not done that, go and do it. Do not go on a formal visit to the injecting centre; go on a formal visit to the surrounds of the injecting centre. Have a look at what happens, especially in the afternoons. As I have said in this House on other occasions, members should go to the injecting centre on Thursday or Friday afternoons and have a look at who is coming out the back door of the centre.

Members have spoken about experimentation. I suggest they have a look at the age group of the people who come out the back door of the injecting centre. If they did so, they would not vote for this legislation. If members are concerned about their kids and about their grandkids, they would not encourage any measure that suggested there was a safe way to take drugs. Indeed, there is not, especially when it obviously encourages experimentation, which the injecting centre does.

The Crime and Justice Bulletin refers to drug-related crime statistics. The only interesting point in the bulletin is the last paragraph, which reads:

"Caution is always required when interpreting trends in police recorded crime data, due to the potential for changes in victim propensity to report crime over time or police enforcement practice to influence recorded rates of crime. The effect of the [injecting centre] itself on crime or public health outcomes could change over time."

The drug-related crime statistics for New South Wales relate to police enforcement action and whether such action was a priority. Over the last 12 years, police enforcement action has not been a priority of the Government in terms of a strategic police approach. Clive Small, one of the most respected police officers in New South Wales, outed the Government for removing funding to attack marijuana plantations. He did that a few years ago. At various stages over the last 12 years the Government has gone soft on drugs, and that is the problem.

In a speech in September 2002 I spoke about the Drug Summit. I noted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jillian Skinner, and I had to drag the Minister for Health to embrace naltrexone as a treatment option in New South Wales. We remember that, both in this Chamber and publicly, the Labor Party was dead opposed to the idea. Why? Because abstinence was an option. That was the debate. That was in 1997 and 1998. We pushed the Government on that issue. We said: Look at treatment options but do not encourage drug use.

There has been much debate about the name of the injecting room. However, the fact remains that it is a taxpayer-funded shooting gallery. Why? Because the Labor Party goes back to the Drug Summit of 1999. Members who were here at the time will recall that after the 1999 election Bob Carr had a problem with the left and the right of the Labor Party. There were many discussions about factional peace in our time, and various things were arranged between the left and the right of the Labor Party. One of them was a soft approach to the Drug Summit; the other was handing the presidency of the Upper House to the Left.

It is instructive to have a look at what has happened in the Upper House while the Labor Government has been in office. If members want a demonstration of how the Government has gone soft on drugs, they should have a look at what it did when it wanted to reduce the number of seats in this Parliament to 93. They should have a look at Hansard in the Upper House between 21 May 1997 and 23 October 1997. If they read the debates on the Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill and the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill, they will get a straightforward story as to how the Labor Party got crossbench members to change their minds about the reduction of seats.The Labor Party did a trade-off to get the number of seats in this Parliament reduced. That has been the attitude of this Government: whatever it takes to play politics. It does not mind if it is using our kids as pawns in the debate.

If members want to have a look at what the Labor left wants to do they should read what was said by Jan Burnswoods, best friend of the Deputy Premier, in the other place on 27 October 1999. She said:

"I regret that a trial will not be held in more than one location. I agree that if only one area is to be used, Kings Cross is probably the most sensible location. However, other areas would be suitable if we are serious about the trial, including the North Coast and western Sydney."

That is the attitude of the Labor Party—admittedly, probably the left of the Labor Party. The right of the New South Wales Labor Party is just playing raw politics on this issue and it is a disgrace.

The Member for Sydney is probably the only person who can stand up in this House with the courage of her convictions and say she supports the bill. I think she is fundamentally wrong and misguided, but I respect what she is doing, because for 10 years she has said she supports the centre and supports having it in her electorate. The difficulty for me is that the centre is within two kilometres of my electorate, and I think it is a horrible idea. All the centre does is promote drug use. I believe that is why we have got such a massive problem at the moment in New South Wales with drug use. But I give credit to the Member for Sydney: she at least supported the centre and supported it in her electorate. That is why I say to every member: if you seriously think this is a good idea tell the Parliament if you are going to support having it in your electorate.

The Member for Sydney makes the point also that the injecting centre operates from confiscated funds. That is a furphy. Confiscated funds go into taxpayers' funds. It is ridiculous to suggest that funding for the centre is not a use of taxpayers' funds. It is; it is not a magic pudding.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I launched a commonsense approach to drugs on 16 March with a policy that focused on a number of matters: treating drug users by adding $60 million to existing funding to boost places in treatment and rehabilitation programs, educating families and the community at risk by providing $5 million for an innovative and hard-hitting campaign targeting falsely labelled recreational drug use, a 15 per cent increase in funding for the New South Wales Crime Commission, calling on the Government to enforce the drug laws with an extra 1,720 police and stronger search powers, the closure of Labor's heroin injecting room and diverting the funding into treatment programs, and a review of Labor's take-home methadone policy. That is a commonsense drug policy, but the New South Wales Labor right has to stop playing politics on this issue.

As I said to the Sydney Morning Herald last week, I have always thought this injecting centre was a bad idea, it is bad for the community and it should be closed. New South Wales needs a fundamental change in the rhetoric and action of the Government; it needs to stop promoting safe drug use. There is no such thing as safe drug use. Talk to families who have lost kids, to family members who have lost a brother or sister, to the people who come to members of Parliament every day and to the thousands who are saying, "Please stop the Government promoting drug use and please put more resources into treatment". Families who are pleading for more resources for treatment of their kids would be horrified with what the Government is doing on this issue.

I say again to members who are seriously considering voting for this bill as a trial in someone else's electorate: tell the House whether you would be happy to have it in your electorate.