Page 5460 - Week 14 - Thursday, 30 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in writing. I have not received a brief. Mrs Dunne, I believe, has asked for a tour of the facility that the proponent works at. We have not received a response. I am keen to get a briefing. Let me be very clear on the legal implications: as the shadow Attorney-General, I have requested such a briefing; no briefing has yet been provided.
I also go to the issue that proponents of pill testing have decided to abuse people that do not support it. It is unacceptable that we see this sort of abuse directed at me, Mrs Dunne and others in the media and in social media. Proponents have been reported as saying that anyone who disagrees only does so through ignorance or dishonesty. One of the statements says:
Either our opponents have no idea what they are talking about, or they are lying for political gain.
If you are trying to have an evidence-based conversation here, if that is what Mr Rattenbury wants, and he retweets a bunch of stuff that is out there, let me tell you this: if that is the sort of debate he wants, saying that this very important issue about liberalising, pushing drugs out so that they are more accessible, is only being opposed—as it was, I note, by the ACT Labor Party until a few weeks ago—for political gain or because we are all ignorant, is he saying that the president of the AMA is ignorant?
I invite Mr Rattenbury to reply in his conclusion. Is the AMA president ignorant or is he lying for political gain? Are the toxicologists ignorant or are they lying for political gain? Are the academics that I have quoted ignorant or are they lying for political gain? And the lawyers? Are the eminent members of the bar or the Law Society ignorant or are they just opposing this for political gain? Maybe he would like to go to that point. That is not the sort of language to use. If you are trying to on the one hand mount an argument that it is all evidence based and you continue with that abuse and then on the other hand say that people will not take briefings, it is a disgusting way to conduct a public debate about what is a very important issue.
In conclusion, I am going to quote something I wish I did not have to. It is about the death of Anna Wood, who died in 1995 as a 15-year-old. She took ecstasy at a dance party and it is reported that her death was as a result of MDMA. Her father, Tony Wood, said:
They keep on about harm reduction. They say just take the stuff safely.
But there is no safe way. You just don’t know what will happen when you take drugs.
That alone should give us pause. As the father of a teenage boy and another boy who is approaching his teenage years, that certainly gives me great cause for concern.
We will not be supporting this motion. It is not evidence based. It is flawed, both on the medical evidence and the legal evidence. I call on proponents who have been abusive in the media to stop that abuse. The Opposition will not be supporting this motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video