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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4187 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

misleading title given to the needle exchange program might not worry its supporters, it does cause any sensible person to ask, "If its promoters can mislead in the naming and operation of a needle exchange program, why should we trust them in the naming and operation of a supervised injecting place?".

And what about community consultation? I am sorry that Ms Tucker is not here because, frankly, a twig cannot be moved in the bush without the Greens or someone equally as politically correct calling for consultation, but there is total silence on having an illegal drug injecting room.

Mr Moore: Oh, Greg, we have consulted to death.

MR CORNWELL: The reason for the silence is twofold, I would suggest, Mr Minister. The obvious reason is that it would not be supported in the broader community. Secondly, apparently too many members here are prepared to condone a "whatever it takes" approach to having a shooting gallery, including allowing for the DPP and the Attorney-General to have a protocol that would prevent the prosecution of shooting gallery users, thus rendering police action pointless and, effectively, decriminalising heroin use inside the gallery and probably discriminating against other users outside the gallery. To agree to this "whatever it takes" protocol is to create a dangerous precedent that could see protocols used indiscriminately to circumvent prosecution of the law - again, I would suggest, damaging to community confidence in the justice system.

I was interested in a comment made on Tuesday night by Mr Moore in speaking about, I think, transport legislation. I rather think it makes a mockery of this matter. According to the uncorrected proof copy of Hansard, Mr Moore said:

So much for the separation of powers, because the courts will not have a chance to act in terms of this shooting gallery. I look forward to your response in due course, Mr Moore.

If the legal and social problems of the establishment of a shooting gallery are self-evident, what is not so clear is the position out on the street for those who do not or will not use the place. I have to say that I think that we should be a little concerned about those people. I ask again: Why should the addicts outside not have the benefit of protection from the law like their colleagues inside Fort Fix? The anomaly between these haves and have-nots is so glaring that I suspect it is, as mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues, part of a longer-term plan to legalise heroin and other illegal drugs.

For the same reason, I believe that Mr Stanhope's sunset clause on this trial really is unnecessary, because I can tell members now that the trial will be claimed by its proponents to be a success. It cannot afford to be anything else because, to put it bluntly, too many reputations are riding on it. That concerns me because it signifies a surrender

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