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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3059 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

the Liberal Party never does and never has done. So it strikes me as an enormous irony for the Liberal Party to claim that the ALP has no policy and no direction on the issue of drugs in our community.

In relation to criminal law and justice, Labor has set out a number of strategies. For the first, in relation to drug law reform, the party has set out six key directions. Firstly, it will continue to support the decriminalisation of possession and use of cannabis for personal purposes, a reform debated extensively in previous assemblies and one which Labor is committed to.

Secondly, Labor will support a comprehensive evaluation of our legislative approach to cannabis, so we will see exactly how that decriminalisation process is operating in practice and what, if anything, needs to be done to refine that approach.

Thirdly, Labor will support the investigation of proposals for the medicinal use of cannabis, with a view to assessing its possible value to sufferers of various chronic or terminal illnesses. This is an issue that we as a legislature should be responding to in a positive way-the fact that people are using drugs for particular purposes, which is currently outside the law. It is happening, and we need to be responsive to that. Labor's policy does just that.

The fourth objective of the drug law reform is to support the establishment of an evidence-based heroin trial as a national project, ensuring the inclusion of needs-based support services and rigorous evaluation processes. Mr Humphries, in saying that we wanted it to be a national project and therefore wanted all states and territories to agree, tried to claim that the Labor Party was trying to cop out on the issue of an evidence-based heroin trial.

Mr Moore: Actually, it was me who raised that issue.

MR CORBELL: Okay, it was Mr Moore who raised that issue. My apologies to Mr Humphries. I want to refute Mr Moore's argument, and the reason I want to do that is that, if Mr Moore had spoken to anyone in the Labor Party about what that statement actually meant, he would know that it recognises that a heroin trial can only proceed with the support of the Commonwealth and must therefore be a national project. Mr Moore should know that the heroin trial can only proceed with the support of the Commonwealth. Indeed, I am sure he does know that. Labor recognises that it can only proceed with the support of the Commonwealth, as well.

Again, it is a great irony for the Chief Minister to accuse Labor of not being strong on this issue, when it is only Labor locally and Labor federally who are arguing for the capacity for states and territories to implement a heroin trial. It is Labor federally who have said they are prepared to give the consent necessary to allow the importation of heroin for those purposes. It was not the Liberals-not Mr Howard, not even Mr Costello-it was the Labor Party. We think that that is a reasonable approach and one that marks the Labor Party as being progressive on these issues, a party that is taking a considered and sensible view of how the issues need to be progressed.

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