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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3019 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

I don't believe that this is the time to have the debate and fight the specifics of the broader drugs issue. But it is the appropriate time to put on the record that the community cannot be sidelined in this important social issue. If the genuine prevailing view is that the community does not want to have a heroin shooting gallery or heroin handouts imposed on it, that view must be registered and put in the strongest possible terms to the elected representatives of the next Assembly.

If I am returned in the next Assembly, I will stand my ground on these issues, as my constituents would expect. It would take an absolutely overwhelming yes vote at the referendum for me even to consider shifting my position. As an Independent, I am one voice and one vote. I will hold the line against this madness as long as possible.

In the event that I am not here next Assembly, you can be sure that the two major parties will be back in some form, and it is important that I remind members where the two major parties stand on these issues.

Firstly, we have the Labor Party, which gave the health minister, Michael Moore, the numbers to pass the shooting gallery legislation in the first place. If Labor had its way, the shooting gallery would have received the green light long ago. If Labor is in power after the election, it certainly means that a shooting gallery is not far behind. Secondly, we have the Liberals. This party is split on the issue. So it is a very real possibility that a shooting gallery will materialise after the election if it retains power. My point is that no major party can claim it has a right or a mandate to follow the path of legalising heroin until it asks the people.

Making destructive drugs legal through heroin trials and shooting galleries is a monumental shift, a quantum leap. There is a groundswell of concern in the community about these measures. It should not be left up to an elite band of designated experts to tell the community, "This is what you must do." These are the same people who say that we have to try different methods. These are the same people who have controlled the harm minimisation agenda that has only made the problem worse.

People in our community are not mugs. They know that the only alternative is not supplying drugs and making heroin legal. They also know that there is no evidence to suggest that it can be successful. But the community does know there are other options that are a proven formula, like the harm prevention model that has been so successful in Sweden. Mr Speaker, what are the yes supporters afraid of? I think it is quite clear that they know where the community is really at.

One fundamental aspect of this debate about the proposed introduction of shooting galleries and heroin trials is that at the moment heroin abuse, possession and usage are illegal. If you wish to make them legal, the community must have a say at a referendum.

The politicians are at a stalemate on this issue. It is time we made a decision on which direction to follow. But I repeat that the major parties cannot use the election outcome to claim a mandate on legalising heroin. They must accept input from the community. I have every confidence that our community will provide a considered input if this referendum proposal is successful.

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