Page 4558 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (3.35): Madam Speaker, the Opposition will support this motion, as indicated earlier today, because it believes that we need to reconsider clause 5 of the Bill.
Mr Wood: Why are you speaking on it?
MR HUMPHRIES: Because I am the Opposition Whip; that is why.
Mr Wood: Why is your leader not speaking?
MR HUMPHRIES: I am the Whip. Mrs Carnell in a moment will speak to her amendment, which has already been circulated in this place. Support for this motion is coming from this side of the chamber not because we resile from the principle that there ought to be an opportunity for proper medical research to be carried out in this Territory into the effects of any drug, but because the Opposition believes that it has been forced into this position by the unprincipled behaviour of the Attorney-General of this place. This Government has argued throughout the life of this Assembly and before that it is a reforming government in the area of drugs. This Attorney-General opposite introduced legislation in this place less than three years ago to decriminalise the personal use of marijuana. That decision, which was opposed by my party at the time - - -
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I am finding it hard to work out whether Mr Humphries is arguing for or against the suspension of standing orders.
MR HUMPHRIES: You find everything hard to work out, Wayne. That is just you.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! The motion before us is Ms Follett's motion, and it relates to the suspension of standing orders. Mr Humphries, please proceed.
MR HUMPHRIES: This Government opposite supported that legislation and argued strongly that it wanted to do so and, as a result of that decision, significantly widened people's access to cannabis in this Territory. Thousands of people were affected by that legislation. The proposal Mrs Carnell and the Opposition supported last week would probably have affected a dozen people at any given time in this Territory. What did this Government do? This Government attacked that position, notwithstanding its own stated position on drug reform, notwithstanding its own party policy on the same question.
What does the Labor Party policy say? I quote from paragraph 10.1, drug offences, of the policy of the ACT branch of the Labor Party:
In general, persons using illegal drugs or possessing them for personal use should be dealt with other than by the imposition of criminal sanctions.
Paragraph 10.3 reads:
Possession and use of cannabis for personal purposes should not be a punishable offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .