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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3023 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

supported by the Labor opposition, yet when it came to funding they found a way to vote against it. They found a way to manipulate it.

I have spoken to Gary Humphries on this matter on many occasions, and I do not for one minute doubt his sincerity on this issue. I am not blind to the fact that there may be some advantage for the Liberal Party in making this an election issue. But I am also not blind to the fact that the Labor Party has an overwhelming need to go against it and to make sure that this is not an election issue by referendum. There is without doubt self-interest in the case of both parties. Mr Humphries has an interest in ensuring that it proceeds, but there is at least as strong a self-interest, or probably even stronger self-interest, from Labor in making sure that it does not proceed.

I have spoken to Mr Humphries about this on many occasions, and I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity.

Mr Berry: Make that point again, Michael.

MR MOORE: I will come back to Labor for you, Mr Berry. I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity in seeking to have this come to a referendum and come to an outcome. In fact, I have discussed with him the likelihood of getting a positive outcome and whether he would then do everything within his power to deliver it, and I think he would.

Mr Stanhope talked about having courage. My measure of courage in the Labor Party will not be tested now. It will be tested only if they are in government at the next Assembly. I look at the policy of the Labor Party locally on these issues, and I look at the policy of the Labor Party federally on these issues. I concede that they are certainly better than the Liberal Party's policies.

But there is a dog-whistling characteristic about the policies. The local one is saying that, if there is a nationally agreed approach, then they can go along with this; and the federal one is saying that, if the states and territories wish to do it themselves, then it will be supported. It has a way out in each case. The policies are there with a way out and with that dog whistling characteristic of trying to appeal to the broad membership and the broad voters of the Labor Party. But unless Labor is in government we will not know whether they are prepared to push and to follow it through. We do have the experience that Mr Stanhope was prepared to lead his party to support the legislation on the injecting room. The injecting room is a very poor second to the heroin trial, but it certainly is better than doing nothing.

That brings me back to the statements of Mr Kaine, who suggested that we are doing nothing with regard to drug policy. It is not true, Mr Kaine. In the ACT there are in the order of 1,500 heroin users. We have programs available for in the order of 1,000. That is a two-thirds ratio. That is better than any other jurisdiction in Australia by miles. There is no waiting time for the methadone program. There has not been a waiting time for the methadone program for a long time.

Methadone is still our most successful treatment, by all research throughout Australia. It does not suit some people who say, "We do not want that style of treatment. We just want them to have nothing to do with drugs at all. We do not want them to take Disprin,

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