Page 275 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
intent. But it is clear that there are a very different set of approaches that are being considered here that have been proposed by the Greens and the Labor Party as opposed to Liberal Party.
I turn to some of the rhetoric that we heard from Mr Pettersson about people moralising and trying to create a bit of a wedge issue. I just make the point that the Canberra Liberals’ position on cannabis is the same as was the Labor Party’s position until a matter of weeks ago. Our position on pill testing is the same position that the Labor Party had up until 12 months ago.
As we have heard from the health minister, and we have heard intimated by others, the suggestion that somehow what the Canberra Liberals are proposing is akin to what happens in the Philippines is playing fast and loose, is creating fearmongering, is creating the very scare campaign that we are being accused of. I think that if we are going to have a sensible debate about drug use and about how we can keep people safe, we need to make sure that we do not hear that ridiculous nonsense sort of rhetoric coming from the other side.
The reality is that any effective drug strategy needs to address three elements: supply, demand and harm minimisation. If you play with one of those, if you affect one of those, then you have the potential to affect the other two. If you go after demand, what does that do potentially to harm minimisation and so on? You have to consider the consequence of the approach that you are taking.
I do not support Mr Rattenbury’s and the Greens’ agenda to legalise drugs. I was just looking at the ABS statistics. The highest death rate from drugs in Australia is now from prescription drugs. He talked about the harm from alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco; that the genie is out of the bottle. Do we want to take the genie out of the bottle on a range of these drugs when the evidence shows that simply legalising them does not reduce the harm and the death rates when you consider that it is prescription drugs now that are causing so much of the harm?
I think we have to be careful when we are sending this message—be it a scare campaign against what might be happening or otherwise—that illicit drugs are fun and safe and that we should all be taking them. I refer to something that should give us caution. It is from Mr Rattenbury’s Facebook page. He has a poster saying, “Welcome to the party! Just legalise it,” and a picture of marijuana.
I think when you have a Greens logo saying, “Welcome to the party,” is that meaning that smoking drugs is all a big party? Or is that an attempt to get people who use drugs to be attracted to the Greens party because of their liberalised drug policy? I think we have to be very careful, as Mr Pettersson was warning and was creating a fear campaign to an extent, that the policies that we adopt are based on harm minimisation, not on vote maximisation. I seek leave to table that snapshot of the poster from Mr Rattenbury’s Facebook page.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: I table the following paper:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video