News (Media Awareness Project) - New Zealand: Law Review Divides Parties |
Title: | New Zealand: Law Review Divides Parties |
Published On: | 2000-06-07 |
Source: | Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 20:33:38 |
LAW REVIEW DIVIDES PARTIES
Wellington: Labour and National traded insults yesterday after National
rejected Health Minister Annette King's proposal for Parliament's health
committee to review New Zealand's cannabis laws.
Mrs King accused National leader Jenny Shipley of double standards after Mrs
Shipley said her party would resist any moves to liberalise the law.
National health spokesman Wyatt Creech responded by saying Mrs King was
"gutless" in wanting the multi-party committee to carry out the review
instead of the Government.
It was up to the Government to come up with proposals for law changes, he
said.
"They've discovered that `reviewing the law' is not popular and they're
trying to shove the responsibility on to someone else . . . They're afraid
of the reaction."
Mrs King said she had spoken to Mr Creech informally some weeks ago and
raised the possibility of the committee - which is made up of MPs from
National, Labour, the Alliance and the Greens - carrying out the review.
The committee would be able to review the law in a "sensible, parliamentary"
way, "rather than trying to play party politics with an issue that's really
serious".
In the last term of Parliament the committee, at the instigation of National
MP Brian Neeson, held an inquiry into the health effects of cannabis and
concluded that the law should be reviewed.
Mrs Shipley pulled the plug on Mrs King's suggestion yesterday, saying the
Government should put proposals to Parliament.
"National's withdrawal from the review would mean the responsibility for
proposing change falls squarely on the Labour, Alliance and Green
politicians," she said.
"I intend to campaign vigorously against any change that would signal
liberalisation."
Mrs King said Mrs Shipley had herself proposed a partial decriminalisation
of cannabis laws only a fortnight ago.
Under Mrs Shipley's proposal, presented to a National Party conference,
people caught with small amounts of cannabis would receive diversion on
their first two offences if they were committed to giving up the drug.
Mrs Shipley was trying to suggest that Labour had already made up its mind
to decriminalise cannabis.
"That's impossible. We don't know whether a review will tell us whether we
ought to decriminalise. It may say no change . . . It may suggest change to
the proposal she has suggested," Mrs King said.
Prime Minister Helen Clark has proposed a system of instant fines for
possession of small amounts of cannabis and the Green Party wants possession
for personal use decriminalised.
Neither Labour nor the Government officially supports decriminalisation and
Mrs King has said any law change arising from the planned review would be a
conscience issue in Parliament.
She said despite National's stance she would write to the health committee
asking if it wanted to conduct the review. She would be appalled if National
withdrew.
If the committee declined her request, she would consider a ministerial
review, a committee of experts or a review conducted by government
officials.
Wellington: Labour and National traded insults yesterday after National
rejected Health Minister Annette King's proposal for Parliament's health
committee to review New Zealand's cannabis laws.
Mrs King accused National leader Jenny Shipley of double standards after Mrs
Shipley said her party would resist any moves to liberalise the law.
National health spokesman Wyatt Creech responded by saying Mrs King was
"gutless" in wanting the multi-party committee to carry out the review
instead of the Government.
It was up to the Government to come up with proposals for law changes, he
said.
"They've discovered that `reviewing the law' is not popular and they're
trying to shove the responsibility on to someone else . . . They're afraid
of the reaction."
Mrs King said she had spoken to Mr Creech informally some weeks ago and
raised the possibility of the committee - which is made up of MPs from
National, Labour, the Alliance and the Greens - carrying out the review.
The committee would be able to review the law in a "sensible, parliamentary"
way, "rather than trying to play party politics with an issue that's really
serious".
In the last term of Parliament the committee, at the instigation of National
MP Brian Neeson, held an inquiry into the health effects of cannabis and
concluded that the law should be reviewed.
Mrs Shipley pulled the plug on Mrs King's suggestion yesterday, saying the
Government should put proposals to Parliament.
"National's withdrawal from the review would mean the responsibility for
proposing change falls squarely on the Labour, Alliance and Green
politicians," she said.
"I intend to campaign vigorously against any change that would signal
liberalisation."
Mrs King said Mrs Shipley had herself proposed a partial decriminalisation
of cannabis laws only a fortnight ago.
Under Mrs Shipley's proposal, presented to a National Party conference,
people caught with small amounts of cannabis would receive diversion on
their first two offences if they were committed to giving up the drug.
Mrs Shipley was trying to suggest that Labour had already made up its mind
to decriminalise cannabis.
"That's impossible. We don't know whether a review will tell us whether we
ought to decriminalise. It may say no change . . . It may suggest change to
the proposal she has suggested," Mrs King said.
Prime Minister Helen Clark has proposed a system of instant fines for
possession of small amounts of cannabis and the Green Party wants possession
for personal use decriminalised.
Neither Labour nor the Government officially supports decriminalisation and
Mrs King has said any law change arising from the planned review would be a
conscience issue in Parliament.
She said despite National's stance she would write to the health committee
asking if it wanted to conduct the review. She would be appalled if National
withdrew.
If the committee declined her request, she would consider a ministerial
review, a committee of experts or a review conducted by government
officials.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...