Supervised injecting facilities: a case study of contrasting narratives in a contested health policy arena

Abstract

In 2006, 2010, and 2011 attempts were made by health policy advocates to ignite policy debate about the introduction of supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne, Australia. Although there have been a number of attempts to introduce SIFs in Australia, only one facility has been introduced in Sydney, and it has only recently achieved full operating status beyond an extended nine-year trial period. This article retraces the policy narratives in documentary materials (parliamentary debates, policy documents, public advocacy and empirical research) to reflect on the causes for policy impermeability in this contested arena. Interest in supervised injecting rooms, whilst always an exemplar of harm reduction, actually emerged in New South Wales in the mid-1990s from government concern over endemic police corruption. Subsequent policy narratives in Victorian SIF advocacy tended to focus heavily on the health and welfare of drug users, with a notable absence of concern about SIFs as a response to police corruption. It is suggested that future policy initiatives in this arena be mindful of the role and influence of policy narratives that focus on policing, if future SIF advocacy is to be successful.