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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2420 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

argument about the numbers or percentages, but you could not argue that lives would not be saved in this matter. Those are the emotive issues that we have all had to deal with in relation to this debate. Those are the emotive issues which have been put before us by Mr Moore, in particular, and Mrs Carnell in recent days, supported by Mr Smyth.

Mr Osborne went on to say:

That was a Labor idea. We put that to the government in the first place in relation to our bipartisan agreement. It is not surprising that the money is going there because that was one of the conditions for going forward on this issue. For Mr Osborne to say, "No, it doesn't and I don't believe it would save any lives" beggars belief. Nobody else takes that view.

Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke have argued for or supported the pro-life case in this place in the past. Mr Smyth and others in this place have argued the pro-life position in relation to abortion. All of a sudden it is not an issue anymore. Aren't the lives of drug-affected people that are at risk because they are living in miserable circumstances worth doing something about?

How is it that people will put politics before that? How is it that people will do that? It is for survival, that is what it is. It is the new order of principle that has been discovered in this debate. Mr Moore has demonstrated that he has a different order of principles, but he has never talked about this new order of principle that has emerged-survival. The survival of politicians in this place seems to have taken over from previously stated positions on the issue of lives.

I hesitate to go further in relation to this matter, but certain people have to look at the hypocrisy of some of their statements on this issue. I said a long time ago that this is not a panacea; it is not a plan that would solve all of the problems for those affected by heroin. It might provide a few answers for some. It will not prevent all of the potential life losses but it will prevent some. Those people in this place who say that they stand for life, those people who have said that this legislation will save lives, must by their own measure support this legislation or risk demonstrating how they are prepared to abandon this important principle just for survival and political expedience.

The timing that has been set out by the proponents of this change to the legislation is merely to provide an issue at the next election for polarising the community. If that is the case-I suspect that it is and I think that most learned observers would suspect that it is-drug law reform is off the agenda in the ACT for a long time. Because of the betrayal on this issue, I think it will be a long time before a Labor opposition or a Labor government will trust the Liberals on adopting a bipartisan approach on an issue as important as law reform in this area.

We were convinced, principally on the basis that we would save a few lives if we put this in place and there was the potential of saving more, that we ought to involve ourselves in a bipartisan arrangement with our traditional political enemies. They betrayed us once, but they will not catch us again.

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