Page 4473 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
yesterday are not for the AIDS Action Council to comment on. It was never my intention to make any public statement on the amendment itself, nor was I empowered to do so by my Board.
That, effectively, was the impact of the conversation that I had with Mr Gillett. He had been saying that they were very careful to be not going one way or the other on the amendment. We had a discussion about the process of social reform, a discussion not unlike ones I have had with Mr Moore. I was quite inspired to see Don Dunstan on television last night. I think it is known that in South Australia, as I was involved in Young Labor, I had great admiration and respect for Don Dunstan. He said on television last night something that he had said to me once in his house, something that has been with me throughout my career in the Australian Labor Party. It is very much the process that has been behind our party over the generations. It is that in social reform it is very important to take the community with you; that the role of a reformist government, or a reformist Labor government, is to be that little bit in front of public opinion, but taking public opinion with you.
I have said to Mr Moore in this context that when you go too far out in front of public opinion you can set back a cause. At that very well attended and very pleasant function today for World AIDS Day, the president of the council made some very complimentary statements publicly in front of television cameras about this Labor Government and successive Ministers for Health and me. After that, the way Mr Moore carried on in question time appalled me. We had that conversation and Mr Gillett explained to me the context in which that press release was written and what they were saying. Yes, they support the medical use of cannabis; but they are not commenting on either your method of doing it, or my method of doing it, which is the controlled, clinical process under Part IV of the Act. From Mrs Carnell's statements today to the national media, she is trying to wriggle out from under this. She is now saying, "Well, section 171B is subject to Part IV anyway", so perhaps there is no difference.
Madam Speaker, turning again to the crux of Mr Moore's allegation, what an extraordinary thing on which to demand the ultimate price for a Minister. Even if I had stated a view contrary to the AIDS Action Council view in the cut and thrust of political rhetoric in question time, is a difference of opinion in ascribing motives to people the thing for which you dismiss a Minister? Mr Moore, really, grow up. In any event, you cannot make that charge, because the AIDS Action Council have made this very clear in this statement, which I table:
Questions about the particular amendment which was passed in the Legislative Assembly yesterday are not for the AIDS Action Council to comment on. It was never my intention to make any public statement on the amendment itself, nor was I empowered to do so by my Board.
That, in rather more formal language, relates the conversation that I had with Mr Gillett in very pleasant circumstances in Garema Place today. So, when you were carrying on in question time and thereabouts and saying, "The AIDS Action Council supports what we did yesterday", I was able to say, "No, they do not. It is not so".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .