Page 2099 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: We know what your program is like. We know what a mess your program is. We know that in three years' time you will not be sitting over there. You will be sitting over here and we will be sitting over there. The point is that if you are going to look at a piece of legislation as far-reaching and as controversial as this is - nobody in this chamber should fail to acknowledge that - we should be setting up the mechanism in the Act to provide for proper review, not just by this Assembly but by the whole community. This would put a deadline on the Act. It would force the Assembly to consider this issue in three years' time. The question is not whether it suits the Government or not, or whether it is up to the Opposition to raise this matter again. It is a question of putting this up in this form. I believe, Madam Speaker, that if the Government were really serious about acknowledging the enormous concern that these provisions are causing in the community they would acknowledge that we have a point and that we ought to be supported in this amendment.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.22): I support the comments of Mrs Carnell and Mr Humphries on this matter. This is not an insignificant matter. I made the point before, Madam Speaker, that the Government finds itself in this position only because they had to back off on what Mr Moore was proposing. They had somehow to ameliorate that. They were not too comfortable with what Mr Moore had initiated. They knew that if they supported him they were going to have to wear the consequences. So they had to soften it a bit. This is their way of attempting to soften it. I would have thought that they would have been just as concerned about the long-term ramifications of this change as we are. They seem to be proceeding on the assumption that the changes will only be beneficial, but the evidence throughout the world suggests that when this sort of change is made it is not always beneficial. There is good evidence to suggest - - -
Mr Moore: The evidence suggests the opposite. Quote one example.
MR KAINE: Alaska is one.
Mr Moore: I am glad you mentioned that because that is not right.
MR KAINE: I am not debating this with you; you have had your say. Mr Moore keeps jumping up and saying, "Have a look at the South Australian experience". It might be marginally better in South Australia than it was some years ago, but the situation there is still relatively worse than it is in New South Wales. But Mr Moore does not tell you that. He just says, "Look at what happened in South Australia".
The Government have taken this responsibility on their shoulders. They have lumped themselves with Mr Moore's proposal and have backed off a little because they did not like what he was saying. They say, "We have to protect ourselves a little bit in this respect. We have to live with our party platform, but we have to soften it as far as we can and not be stuck with the stigma of what Mr Moore is proposing". I suggest that there is some merit from your standpoint in supporting this. You may find out that the net effects are not beneficial at all.
Mrs Grassby said, "They should be educating youth about the use of this drug". You are a member of the Government, Mrs Grassby. Where is the Government's program for this? I agree with you entirely. If we left the law as it stands today and embarked on a proper education program you might get some long-term benefit. But I do not see anything from your Government, Mrs Grassby. I do not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .