Page 4584 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is important for us to take up the suggestion by Mr Connolly that in the next Assembly, for those of us who are still here, we should continue this work. I can see that, by and large, the very sensible legislation that was put through last week is going to be lost. I would like to see a situation where we go through a further process of investigating the medical use of cannabis, and also the industrial uses of cannabis, through an Assembly committee, to ensure that we deal with the sorts of issues that have been raised today in a sensible and rational way. I hope that I will have the opportunity to serve on such a committee and that perhaps somebody like Ms Ellis, with whom I have served on many committees and who has an open mind on such issues, would be prepared to serve, and indeed any other member.
I think there is great shame for the Labor Party in the way this process has been followed. They must be particularly embarrassed about the way they have approached this, shamelessly tramping on those who needed their help, shamelessly tramping on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, for political point-scoring. For those of us who listened to Mr Lamont's speech, it was very interesting to watch some of his colleagues when he was talking about the Liberal Party self-mutilating and so forth. We were on the political level of this debate; we had lost what it was really about. That would have embarrassed most people. I did not see Mr Connolly being embarrassed because I do not think he knows how to be embarrassed. I think he has lost the ability to do that.
I happen to have with me the United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration booklet on how to hold your own in a drug legalisation debate. In other words, how do you argue against somebody like Michael Moore when he puts up the notion that we need to take sensible steps away from prohibition? Mr Connolly could have used the book. His arguments, his way of presenting it, his networking, the whole process probably improved a little on the book. He could easily have used the book. The misrepresentation that went on was extraordinary, and the misrepresentation continued when we heard Mr Lamont talking about dangerous amendments. The Labor Party's own platform goes much further than these amendments. I happen to think that platform was very sensible.
Whenever we have had drug law reform anywhere in the world there have been screams about open slather. One of the ironies of drug law reform is that it would appear that, whenever it has occurred, when you look at it over a three- or four-year period you find that just the opposite has happened. Many people account for that by drawing attention to the fact that when you reform, when you move away from prohibition, you also move away from the forbidden fruit syndrome; but, perhaps more importantly, you move away from the pyramid sales networks that operate.
In conclusion for the moment, I indicate that I will not be supporting the Liberal Party amendments. The reason for that part of it, although I know that they have been put up genuinely, is that my reading of subsection 170(2) of the Act, which also refers back to subsection 169(2), indicates to me that the people the Liberal Party is seeking to protect are already protected. That is my personal interpretation of the Act. It would also seem to me that the restriction for authorisation under section 33 of the Act would do exactly what is in the Act now, unless the amendment I will move shortly, which members have, were to be passed. If that amendment were to be passed, it would add something that is not in the Act, that is, protection for people in terms of cultivation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .