Every Thursday at around 6am I arrive at Warren Park Serviceway Carpark in the CBD of Liverpool and make my way down the stairways to exit. It is sadly confronting to see homeless people sleeping in the stairways on top of cardboard surrounded by evidence of illicit drug use, including used needles and syringes in stairways of the carpark.
It’s clear that Liverpool continues to have a significant drug problem. I feel sorry for the council workers who are tasked to clean the needle riddled areas each day. Surely there is a better way?
As Liverpool continues to evolve as a major hub in Sydney’s southwest, our community faces important decisions about public health and safety. One topic that merits careful consideration is the potential implementation of a Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). Let’s examine the evidence from existing facilities to understand what this could mean for our community.
The Human Cost of Inaction
Sarah Kendrick’s story is one that no family should have to experience. When her husband Lee was found in a Campbelltown car park in 2017, he became one of 84 people who died from drug-related causes in Sydney’s south-west that year. Behind each of these statistics is a story – a parent, a child, a partner, a friend. See her story here
The Changing Landscape
Recent data paints a concerning picture. While Sydney’s CBD has historically been the focal point for drug-related deaths, the landscape is shifting. According to the Penington Institute, south-west Sydney recorded 396 drug-related deaths from 2017 to 2021, making it the area with the second-highest mortality rate in Greater Sydney. More concerning still, this represents a 16% increase from the previous five years – growth more than double that seen in Sydney’s centre.
The Evidence for Safe Injecting Facilities
The data supporting safe injecting facilities (SIFs) is compelling:
- Sydney’s Medically Supervised Injection Centre has managed over 11,000 overdoses since 2001, with zero deaths
- Melbourne’s facility prevented over 60 deaths since 2018
- These facilities have demonstrated success in connecting people with treatment services and reducing public drug use
The Local Debate
Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun has previously expressed opposition to a SIF in the area, suggesting increased police resources as an alternative solution. However, recent research from Brown University suggests that intensive policing may actually increase the risk of overdose deaths, with one study finding that police drug seizures were followed by a two-fold increase in deaths.
A Balanced Approach
While SIFs aren’t a complete solution to drug-related issues, they represent an evidence-based approach to preventing deaths and connecting people with support services. As Kris Nguyen, a local community leader who works with people affected by drug use, notes: “It’s a good idea to have a safe place to use. And it gets monitored. If they overdose, they’ll have the support that they need.”
The Broader Picture
Any discussion about SIFs must acknowledge the need for comprehensive drug policy. This includes:
- Improved access to rehabilitation services
- Enhanced drug education programs
- Better coordination between health services
- Community support systems
Looking Forward
The evidence suggests that a SIF in Liverpool could save lives while providing a crucial bridge to treatment services. As Dr. George Dertadian from UNSW points out, “There is no other service that can boast the kinds of evidence base that injecting facilities can boast for saving the lives of people who use drugs.”
The decision to establish a SIF in Liverpool shouldn’t be driven by ideology but by evidence. With 396 lives lost in south-west Sydney over just five years, we must ask ourselves: can we afford not to consider every evidence-based option available to prevent these deaths?
While concerns about the impact of such facilities on local communities are understandable, the experience of existing SIFs in Australia and worldwide shows they can operate safely while saving lives and reducing pressure on emergency services. The question for Liverpool isn’t whether to act, but how to implement solutions that we know can work.
