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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3621 ..

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (12.24): Mr Humphries's first amendment, which I did have before me - - -

Mr Moore: The handwritten one?

MR BERRY: The handwritten one. Essentially, it turns around the words that we used in the motion. I am indifferent to it. If it is the mood of the Assembly, I am quite happy with the amendment, though I am not sure that I am able to in the context of the amended motion, because my policies have now brought concerns from the Assembly. Maybe the motion is a bit hypocritical. If this is a policy that is worth supporting and I support it, I do not know how you can express concern, with the spiteful decision that you made earlier.

The other amendment that was moved by Mr Humphries is fine. Ms Reilly is circulating a further amendment which would tie the Government into the allocation of those funds. Ms Reilly will speak for herself, but her amendment will enhance the amendment which has been put forward by Mr Humphries. We would support the handwritten amendment proposed by Mr Humphries and we would support the typewritten amendment he has moved, which talks about support for the Territory's applications for funding from the Commonwealth initiative.

However, if the allocations to the States and Territories are done on a per capita basis without any other formula, then there is some difficulty, because it will not amount to much. There is not a terrible lot of money when you look at the difficulties being faced interstate. It may well require more funds from the ACT Government. I do not step back from my promise to pursue the Government to ensure that adequate funding is made available for these issues. So far the Government's emphasis on dealing with the drug problem in the ACT has been misdirected and is at the base of some of our problems.

MR SPEAKER: As Ms Reilly has foreshadowed an amendment to the second of Mr Humphries's amendments, is it the wish of the Assembly that we divide this question? In other words, is it the wish that we put the amendment to paragraph (4) and then put the amendment to add a paragraph (6)? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

MR MOORE (12.28): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to Mr Humphries's amendment to paragraph (4) - the handwritten one - just to say that, yes, it does use the same words as Mr Berry has used, and I think both issues are important. It is a very important question of priority, and the fundamental priority is, first of all, that we go for harm minimisation. That is the prime priority in this approach to illicit drugs. It is a much better amendment than what I have foreshadowed but will not put up, in that it does recognise the important aim - Mr Berry and I had discussions on this yesterday - of deterring young people from using drugs in the same way as we deterred them from using alcohol and tobacco.

MR SPEAKER: The question is: That Mr Humphries's amendment to paragraph (4) be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

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