Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2417 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
Mr Speaker, the proponents of the legislation had been out there pulling all the emotional strings in relation to the matter. Mr Moore spoke ad nauseam about the lives that would be lost if we did not proceed down a particular path. The Chief Minister spoke ad nauseam about the lives that would be lost if we did not proceed down the same path. Mr Smyth spoke ad nauseam and with compassion about the lives that would be lost if we did not go down this path. Of course, they have completely forgotten about that at this point.
Having made the decision to support the legislation, the legislation became an act of parliament; but what happened with the next little problem the Liberals ran into? Without consulting with us, they were off trying to deal away the legislation that was passed in this place following the bipartisan agreement with us. Mr Speaker, the Liberals can plead as much as they like; they were glad to get rid of it.
Mr Osborne is well known around this place for having wanted to have a different timetable for this debate. It is well known around the place that Mr Osborne would have preferred this debate to be happening around election time. I am sure that Mr Rugendyke also would rather have it happen around election time because it would give them something to polarise the community about and build a support base for themselves. But the agreement reached between us and the Liberals in the first place made sure that we kept our mind focused on the issue of providing some relief for people who were affected by drugs in our community, particularly by heroin, rather than toadying to the preferences of the crossbenchers, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne. I will come back to them in a minute.
I turn to another issue, Mr Speaker. I think that Mr Humphries is a member of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. Mr Moore is a member, a founding member, of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, is he not?
Mr Humphries: What is that?
MR BERRY: You are a member of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, are you not?
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MR BERRY: Have you handed in your resignation yet? Shame on you.
Mr Humphries: I do not intend to.
MR BERRY: No, you would not. You only joined for populist reasons, anyway; it was never about commitment. Is Mrs Carnell a member of it as well? Perhaps not. I have been asked on many occasions why I was not a member of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform.
Mr Humphries: Why not?
MR BERRY
: I always had some doubts about Mr Moore's commitment to these issues on the basis of the headline-grabbing and polarising approach that he has taken on drugs. This is not the first time I have said it and I will continue to say it as the events of recent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .