Page 2093 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the member supposed to be addressing the gallery or is he supposed to be addressing this Assembly? He is not supposed to be playing to the audience.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine. Mr Lamont, would you please address your comments to me.
MR LAMONT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At least I pay respect to the Chair and face the Chair when I am speaking in this chamber, unlike some other people. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note, given the history of the Liberal Party as enunciated in the Canberra Times of 3 March 1991, when Mr Humphries, who currently is not interested enough to be in the Assembly - - -
Mr Moore: It is a bit embarrassing for him.
MR LAMONT: Yes, it probably is.
Mr Wood: I wonder why he is not speaking in this debate.
MR LAMONT: I do not know. I thought it might have been the silver fox playing a trick again - getting the boys and girls on the backbench to start the issue running, then sitting back, letting them embarrass themselves, and knocking another one over. I suppose that he really needed to let Mrs Carnell go because on 3 March 1991 Mrs Carnell was not a member of the Liberal Party. I do not suppose she was involved in coming to this position.
Madam Speaker, the whole thrust of the Opposition's objection to this Bill, this necessary reform, is based on a very simple premise, and that is contained in the ACIL document. It basically says that, no matter how good, how progressive, or how reformist the Labor Government becomes, members of the Liberal Party have to stand up and show that they are not going to give the Chief Minister flowers on Valentine's Day; they are not going to allow Mr De Domenico to kiss her hand when she comes into public forums; they have to stop this; they have to stop being silly little boys and girls; they must show that they are an opposition and they must object for the sake of objecting. That is exactly what these people have done. I believe that the way in which they have attempted to give the impression that this Government is about the legalisation of marijuana has been outrageous. That is what they have attempted to portray, and that is wrong.
The amendment which will be put by the Attorney this morning will allow for proper reform in this area. It will say that a person who may be experimenting, and may be doing nothing more, will not be subject to a criminal offence if taken and charged under this law. This is proper law. It is a proper way for us to proceed. I believe that the Opposition should be condemned for the way in which they are treating not only this Assembly but also the people of Canberra by misrepresenting what is occurring here today.
MR CORNWELL (12.02): Madam Speaker, I must say that I dislike the use of euphemisms - comments such as "terminate with extreme prejudice" and "pass away". Now we have "harm minimisation". This is a euphemism for the decriminalisation of a harmful drug. It is no use arguing, Mrs Grassby, that because the smoking of cigarettes is legalised we should say, "Well, cannabis is too hard to deal with as well, so let us legalise it". Where do you draw the line on that? If incest, wife beating or child pornography is all too hard to control, is the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .