Page 3747 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from illicit drugs compared to all these people who die from smoking and drinking. Of course, what he overlooks is that if you go and talk to the police, they will tell you that 80 per cent of the crime committed in this place and elsewhere in Australia is by people supporting drug habits. The attempt to play it down as an aspect of society about which we probably should not be so concerned is, in fact, not supported by the broader economic impact of illicit drugs.
I have friends who are in a medical practice in Sydney. Not every person addicted to drugs is lying in a gutter or under a tree at night. My friends tell me about the large number of addicts who have got what appear to be normal jobs and conduct normal lives but who have got themselves hooked on various substances. The cost to our society from those people is substantial. We hear a lot about the cost of the impact of smoking on people’s health, and there is no question that it has a significant adverse effect. But there is also a huge hidden cost of illicit drug users in our society. They are not simply confined to those that appear to be homeless or disadvantaged and are visible to the eye; they are in many more locations in our society. It is up to us as a parliament to address those.
The rationale seemed to be from Ms Gallagher that it will not end drug taking. No, it will not, and I never argued that point of view. But I do not think that is an excuse to take no action. I have to agree that I thought her address was one of the lighter performances from the Deputy Chief Minister and health minister. I was expecting a substantial contribution. To simply dismiss it and say, “Well, the Liberals are supporting this, so they are not fit to govern,” when she is clearly taking an inconsistent approach in relation to the tobacco legislation that we will debate in the next 24 hours, is a concept I find quite difficult to accept.
Mr Smyth addressed the matter also, and he highlighted the fact that the government’s argument on consultation is very weak. He is right, of course, in this respect. We have got bills that have been brought into this place this week on only a couple of day’s notice, and we are being asked to vote on them. In some cases, such as the unit titles bill that we voted on last night, there was a totally inadequate amount of time for the community to speak; I am still getting emails from people who are upset. It is really no argument to say that because a bill was brought in a week ago there is insufficient time to consult.
Mrs Dunne mounted the argument that if I brought in a bill today to ban cigarette holders and I did not include pipes, I bet that would suddenly be a pretty reasonable thing to do. It should have been done before this particular legislative measure. When I checked to see and found that it had not been, I was a bit surprised. The events of South Australia certainly spurred me on and, frankly, I am surprised. However, I do see this as a point of differentiation when talking to the electorate.
Finally, I welcome Mr Stefaniak’s comments. He indicated to me yesterday that he thought this was a good legislative measure, and I was pleased to hear his story about his friend in Belconnen who had indicated that he voluntarily agreed to giving up selling these products because he was morally challenged by the trade that he was profiting from, which was clearly at the expense of young people in providing them with a means to use illicit substances. I believe this bill deserves the support of members in this place; I am pleased that a number of members are supporting this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .