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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4188 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

in the drug war - a war we have not begun to fight, in my opinion, and of which we know so little, save that of their own wilful choice tragically people become its casualties. If we are to fight to victory this pestilence, agonising soul-searching will be required on behalf of parents and families of the dead and the addicted and of society in general to try to find real explanations for these human tragedies.

Earlier, Mr Stefaniak gave some information about peer pressure, fun, et cetera, which are no doubt part of the answer. But I think that we will all have to look a lot deeper before we can come to any real conclusion. Might I argue that in our quest for these answers we must not compromise. For example, I do not think that we should move to institutionalise illicit drugs, as we are doing with the shooting gallery, nor do I think that we should go soft upon punishment in the courts for any traffickers or fail to call in debts from both locally born and multicultural new Australians to dob in some of these traffickers.

Neither should the small group of people elected to the Assembly, the majority of whom appear to be soft on the behaviour of people breaking this law, presume to inflict upon the ACT community the unknown consequences of having a shooting gallery, at least not without asking for the opinion of those who will suffer or be threatened criminally by these consequences, namely, the people of Canberra. Of course, the easiest and fairest way of doing that is by having a referendum, as has been stated before. If we are not prepared to do that, if we are not prepared to carry out the ultimate consultation process upon a crucial matter that affects every person living in the ACT, those who oppose such a democratic approach should and will answer for it at the next election.

I would suggest to those who oppose this proposal that we must keep up on it and we must be vigilant. We must keep asking questions. How many are living? How many are dead? What is the success? What is the failure? We must continue to ask these questions every three months or every six months. (Extension of time granted) I believe that this proposal is ill thought out. The proposal owes more to the heart than the head. I am convinced that it does not have the support of the majority of the people living in the ACT. I think that it has been born of deep sorrow, of misguided compassion, in some anger and in a false sense in some cases of being progressive. But it also demonstrates that, among the wrong-headed, an apparently clever, caring community can sometimes be too clever by half.

I do not believe that we should inflict the unknown perils of a shooting gallery upon Canberra for any of the reasons I have just listed as justification by its supporters and certainly not without asking our citizens first because a shooting gallery could not be swallowed up in Canberra like it could in a city such as Sydney or Melbourne. Here, all our constituents will be exposed to its dangerous crime-based fallout. The drugs are still illegal. The people who use them still have to get money to buy the illegal drugs. I do not think that the banks are going to lend them that money. They are going to commit crime and I do not believe that anybody who is supporting this suggestion for a shooting gallery should inflict that upon the people of the ACT.

I would like to conclude with another quote. I would like to quote again Mr Moore of last Tuesday night. According to page 133 of the uncorrected proof copy of Hansard, he said:

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