Page 4575 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: There is something called sarcasm, Mr Lamont, and that is what you are getting at the moment - sarcasm. Mr Lamont, Ms Follett and Mr Connolly have, I understand, been running an unusual line today, and that is that the policy of the ACT branch of the Labor Party does not bind its members in the parliamentary Labor Party. Ms Ellis looks pretty stunned at this. "Good heavens; is that right?", she says. She looks very stunned. You should look stunned, because, as I understand your party policy, you and your colleagues are bound by party policy. Indeed, so are we. But is that going to be an impediment to your trashing your own party policy? Apparently not. I look forward to an explanation from those opposite as to why they can sustain the line that they have a party policy that says that possession and use of cannabis for personal purposes should not be a punishable offence and yet oppose the matter that is before the Assembly today. I repeat that there are adequate safeguards in here. If Mr Connolly believes otherwise, he should point out why that is not the case.
The fact of the matter is that there has been extensive politicking on this matter by the Government opposite. They have exploited this matter for every ounce of value they could get from it. I have no doubt at all that Dr Lawrence's office and Mr Lavarch's office and so on did not independently come to the view that they should buy into this debate. I have absolutely no doubt that they took the view on the basis of having had advice from or contact with the office of someone across the way there. Perhaps it is the member with the perfectly formed proboscis who happened to have someone on his staff make a phone call across to the hill and make some comment such as, "How about you guys getting into this issue of cannabis? We have our Liberal opponents on the run here. How about a few comments about 'might infringe international treaties, might cause some terrible catastrophe in our system of drug administration in this country'?". Not surprisingly, their colleagues on the hill were prepared to buy into that argument.
We have a government that is supposed not to play politics attacking Mrs Carnell every time she is supposed to be playing politics on health. When the opportunity opens up, they charge through the gap as quickly as you can blink your eyes. The Labor Party policy is left in this process as one of the greatest works of fiction ever seen in the Territory. A document that is supposed to guide and bind members of this party opposite in this place is not worth the paper it is written on, when it comes to the crunch. I think those opposite deserve to be ashamed of their conduct in this place. They have behaved like the pack of charlatans they truly are. The comment was made across the way that they were not given advance notice of the amendment being moved by Mrs Carnell. Is it any wonder, I ask you? Of course it is not.
I also note that the Chief Minister issued a press release on Friday. This is the press release, by the way, that came out at the same time as the government business meeting was being told that there was no way the Assembly would sit on Friday this week or any day next week. At the very same moment as this was being said by the Government Whip, Ms Follett was saying to the media, "Yes, we will sit on Friday, if we have to, to deal with this matter". There seems to be confusion opposite, but that is to be expected. In this press release, Ms Follett says quite clearly that there is no scope, no room for amendments; that the only thing that could possibly be done by a responsible government and Assembly is simply to rescind the motion. Why did you want to see our amendment, if you were not going to vote for it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .