Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2768 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mrs Carnell mentioned the general point that we need a residential rehabilitation facility for young people. We are hearing that in the committee that is looking into services for children at risk and in the mental health inquiry as well - the problem of dual diagnosis. I acknowledge that Mrs Carnell has pointed that out as something that she realises does need to be addressed. I look forward to seeing the evaluation of this strategy later on in the year.

I went to New South Wales with Mr Moore to hear Professor Penington talk. There was a particular response that he made when Fred Nile at one point took the very holy and high moral and high religious ground and said basically, "This is a moral issue and it is pretty clear you have a choice; you do or you do not". Professor Penington responded by quoting the Bible to Fred Nile. He said he thought a suitable parable to reflect on at that point was the parable of the good Samaritan, where there was the person in need on the side of the road. The health worker walked by and said, "No, it is a legal problem", and then the lawyer walked by and said, "No, it is a health problem", and then the good Samaritan walked along and said, "Hey, this person needs help". I thought it was a very clever response by Professor Penington to this very reactionary response from Fred Nile. I do not see John Howard's response as any more sophisticated than Fred Nile's response. I am absolutely appalled by it and I will continue to support motions in this place which raise these issues.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.43): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I want to concentrate my remarks on the things that Mr Berry had to say and to describe to this house as clearly as I can what I think Mr Berry has been trying to do in his statements in recent weeks where he has been taking a swing at the emphasis on alternative strategies and the harm minimisation approach at the expense of drug education. I want to say very clearly that I think what has happened here is that we have seen one of the most sad, pathetic and tawdry attempts to take political advantage at the expense of a very critical issue of social policy. We have seen Mr Berry attempt to exploit the situation, not to assist people who are dependent on drugs in this community, not to produce better outcomes to reduce the levels of crime and so on associated with the use of drugs, not to attack this problem at its root, but to secure short-term political advantage for himself and his party, because Mr Berry believes in only one thing in this place. Mr Berry believes in success for himself and his party on 21 February, and nothing else matters.

Mr Berry: And you do not?

MR HUMPHRIES: Not to this extent, no, I do not. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, what has happened in the last few weeks is very clear. We have had a situation where the Chief Minister of the ACT has courted the displeasure of a great many of her conservative colleagues across Australia and the antipathy of a very significant part of the ACT community by going out and talking about a heroin trial, a trial which runs counter to at least 30 years of public policy which has told people, "Do not do drugs. Drugs are bad. We must stop drugs. Do not go anywhere near drugs". She has taken on 30 years of policy by saying, "No, it is time we rethought this strategy. It is not working".

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .