Page 3917 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries raised the issue of the stand taken by Ros Kelly, who is currently Minister for Sport. What will she do when she sees the Prime Minister's XI? Look at the emotive strength of the stance we could take on this issue - the Prime Minister's own cricket team, the Prime Minister's XI. Look at the chance we have to send a message throughout Australia that tobacco is not - - -
Ms Follett: But if it were marijuana that they were smoking it would be all right.
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from the Chief Minister, and it is the same issue Mr Jensen raised earlier, about the fact that I advocated the decriminalisation of marijuana. My position is particularly simple to understand, and I want Mr Jensen to try to wrap his mind around it, if he can. It is a harm reduction approach. It is very simple; it is very consistent. We do whatever we can to reduce the harm associated with the use of any drugs. If you read my report carefully and look at the position, you will see that they are totally consistent.
The easy, ignorant way to do it is to put things in black and white and say, "We will ban everything". I am not suggesting banning tobacco. I do not think that will work, any more than it has worked for other substances. What I am saying is that by getting rid of this advertising - and most of us are trying to do it - most of the problems can be resolved as far as this sort of sponsorship goes.
Mr Berry, in a rather confused speech, talked about this motion of disallowance somehow smelling of hypocrisy - and that was echoed by Mr Jensen - because we allowed a clause in this legislation that a Minister shall be able to provide exemptions. There is no hypocrisy about that. This is fine. The Minister has been allowed to provide exemptions. Equally, we have the right to move disallowance, which is exactly what has happened. There is no hypocrisy associated with that. We are able to move disallowance, and that is what I have done.
I am suggesting that that motion being carried on the voices did not necessarily mean that it had unanimous agreement. The only time we know that motions have unanimous agreement is when somebody actually calls for the vote. Nobody called for the vote. All it means is that nobody called for the vote; it does not mean that it had unanimous support.
I am quite happy to say that I did support the legislation and I did support this exemption with specifically, for a short time, the Winfield Cup in mind. Because so many Canberra players are involved, because it affects the way that sport operates, it is something I have to live with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .