Page 1814 - Week 05 - Thursday, 10 May 2018

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

listen or who have not listened. They also reflect an ideological view rather than a real view of what is actually being done through these processes. I think that is unfortunate.

Nonetheless, the good news is this actually did go ahead in the ACT, despite some of these approaches. I think it was a great success. As I said in my earlier remarks, and reflecting the real purpose of bringing this motion forward today, I simply want to congratulate those who were involved in both helping to get this off the ground and who actually conducted it on the day.

As I said earlier, it takes real courage to do something like this when it has not been done before in Australia. I really do acknowledge all of those involved, including the University of Canberra who I did fail to mention earlier. Their willingness to acknowledge this as a positive thing, given that Groovin the Moo was taking place on their land, was an important part of the process as well. I was pleased to run into University of Canberra staff on the day and chat to them about it. I really thank them for their support of this initiative.

I hope that this is a start of a different discussion on drug law policy in Australia in recognition that drug responses do require that three-pronged approach to supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction. I am pleased to see that we have actually been able to get into a space where the harm reduction part of that discussion has actually had a serious airing. We have seen a significant new effort in that space taking place in Australia. In conclusion, thank you again to all those involved. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 12

Noes 9

Ms Berry

Ms Orr

Miss C Burch

Mr Milligan

Ms J Burch

Mr Pettersson

Mr Coe

Mr Parton

Ms Cheyne

Mr Ramsay

Mrs Dunne

Mr Wall

Ms Cody

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hanson

Mr Gentleman

Mr Steel

Mrs Kikkert

Ms Le Couteur

Ms Stephen-Smith

Ms Lawder

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Australian public service—impact of relocations

Discussion of matter of public importance

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Steel): Madam Speaker has received letters from Miss C Burch, Ms Cheyne, Ms Cody, Mrs Dunne, Mr Hanson, Mrs Kikkert, Ms Lawder, Mr Milligan, Ms Orr, Mr Parton, Mr Pettersson and Mr Steel proposing that matters of public importance be submitted to the Assembly. In accordance with standing order 79, Madam Speaker has determined that the matter proposed by Ms Cody be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:

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