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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2407 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The issues the Liberals have grappled with have been much more pragmatic and less about the principles. I understand that they would prefer to have the stability of the support they think they will have. Maybe Mr Kaine is right and they know it and some quiet undertakings have been made by the various players on this matter. I would have thought the supervised injecting place would have been of higher importance in their discussions.

MR CORBELL (2.47): Mr Speaker, I find the Supervised Injecting Place Trial Amendment Bill an absolutely amazing and appalling backdown by this government. We all understand the context in which this has come about, but it is an extraordinary backdown and an extraordinary change of heart when you look at what is occurring in the states around us. The New South Wales Labor government is working towards the implementation of a supervised injecting place in Sydney. The new Victorian state Labor government is looking at the implementation of no fewer than five supervised injecting places in Melbourne. Those two state governments have had their problems in seeking to implement this important reform, but they have worked towards achieving it. It is a sad reflection on this place that we do not feel that we are capable of taking the same steps. It is a sad reflection that it has got to the stage of using the budget to stop this reform.

I am a member of Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform, as is Mr Moore and, I understand, Mr Humphries. The Chief Minister may be as well. I was not sure but she has indicated she is. We have all signed a charter to seek to implement progressive drug law reform wherever we believe it is possible.

Ms Carnell: You should have thought about that last week.

MR CORBELL: The Chief Minister interjects, "You should have thought about that last week." The government's interpretation of the events over the past week is simplistic at best. If you extended the government's argument to its logical end point, this opposition, indeed any non-government member in this place, would vote against every single bill that was introduced following a budget. Every single bill that was introduced to fund a new initiative in a budget we would vote against. If we voted against the budget, we would therefore vote against everything else.

The establishment of a road transport authority was an initiative of last year's budget. The Labor Party opposed the budget last year. But when the road transport reforms came in, did we say, "No, we are not going to have anything to do with this because it was in the budget and we opposed the budget"? Of course not. The government's argument is nonsensical, and it demonstrates that they are unable to draw the line between support for individual initiatives and support for their administration of the territory overall.

We have a responsibility. The people who elected us believe that we should be here to voice their views and their concerns about the legislation that affects their lives. That is what we have done with the safe injecting place legislation. That is what we do with every other piece of legislation that comes before this chamber. When it comes to the budget, we say that it is a vote on whether or not we believe this government is capable of responsibly administering the territory on behalf of the people of Canberra. It would be a gross failure of our responsibilities if we said we thought the job you were doing was all right. We do not, so we voted against the budget. It is that simple.

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