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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 361 ..

MR BERRY: The prohibition in public buildings works. There is a long list of prohibitions that work. Let us not waste time in the debate. Prohibition is part of our society, and we live with it. I do not think it is very helpful to go on in this debate about prohibition not working. It is a social and health issue, and it is one that the community is going to have to come to grips with; but it is not an issue that we can decide if we are so progressive here in the ACT that we proceed with it on our own. I think that would spell the end of it. The job, I think, is a long and hard one. I think it will be around for a long time. Again, changes in philosophy of various governments around the country will affect its development as well. At this point at least, the people of the ACT would not be satisfied with the priorities that have been set by Mrs Carnell in relation to the expenditure of money here.

I heard other comment about how we need to provide services at other levels at the same time as we are dealing with this issue. That is true; but I think, in the national sense, the job of changing the way that we deal with people who are dependent on heroin is a much harder one than dealing with some of those other basic service issues here in the ACT. I think that is where we come back to that issue that I raised earlier; that is, the questions that would be in the minds of people in the community about the priorities of the Liberal Government opposite.

At the same time, I would have to say that if this report were in the hands of a Labor government we would be moving to argue the case at a national level. We would be principally involved, in the first place, in using this particular report as an education document for the rest of Australia. I think there is going to have to be a lot more debate on the issue before we get to the point where we have a trial in the ACT. I note that other people have said that it has to have the support of other States. I suppose that time will tell how much is required before anything is done in relation to this issue, but it is something that has to be handled with a great deal of delicacy. I do not think all of the people of the ACT are convinced that we should go down this path yet. It is going to be a while before we are able to convince people on a national front.

MR WOOD (4.55): Mr Humphries has a remarkable approach to this debate. Although the report was ordered by his Chief Minister and tabled by her, Mr Humphries has rebuked the Opposition for wanting to debate it. In fact, the debate, other than his contribution, has been entirely reasonable. The Opposition is giving qualified and cautious support to this trial. Let me emphasise the point that it is a trial. It is not the implementation of a continuing policy. It is proposed to be highly directed, limited and specific. We will again consider our approach after the completion of the trial.

There are a number of matters regarding the trial that need further consideration. In particular, it must focus on rehabilitation, not simply the reinforcement of the use of heroin. It must also pay attention to the interests of users at the end of the trial, if it is unsuccessful. The Opposition's support of the trial is dependent on it being a national trial, with appropriate financial support. Canberra, as an island within New South Wales, may not be the best location for such a trial. If agreement were to be reached to proceed to a further stage, that might better be done in a larger population centre.

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