Page 925 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were a person of integrity; but this morning you have really dented my perception of you. I am surprised and amazed that you would pull this kind of a stunt. I think the Assembly ought to vote on this, vote on it quickly, get it off the agenda and then deal with the problem that Mrs Carnell is trying to deal with - and the quicker, the better.
MRS GRASSBY (11.12): I think the Bill should be withdrawn. I am a member of the Drugs Committee. I never got an advance copy of the Bill. I knew nothing about the Bill until today, and I feel that - - -
Mrs Carnell: We gave it to your Minister.
MRS GRASSBY: I do not think that is correct, Madam Speaker. Mrs Carnell said that it was given to the Minister. I am a member of that committee. I understand that Mr Moore, as chairman, has seen this Bill; but I was not given a copy, and I was not told anything about it. After the experience that we had on a trip to Sydney, I have an entirely different point of view to this. I think the Bill should have been discussed with the committee. If Mrs Carnell is going to bring before the house Bills that have a lot to do with the matter this committee is considering, they should be discussed with the committee first.
I understand from Mr Moore that he has seen the Bill; that he knew about it. I knew nothing about it, as I say, until this morning, when it was brought up in our caucus. This is not the way to go. If Mrs Carnell had done the correct thing, she would have discussed it with the committee so that we would have known about this. I do not wish to discuss whether pharmacists are going to make money out of it or not. As a member of the committee, I feel that we should have been informed.
MR MOORE (11.13): It seems to me that what has been tabled today is legislation that will facilitate decisions that are made by government, because the changes proposed to the Drugs of Dependence Act are simply changes that would allow things to happen rather than force them to happen. There is a very big difference between this Bill and legislation that acts in that way. Secondly, this proposal is something that was actually announced by the Minister last year, and as such is already government policy. So, when Mrs Carnell approached me with this piece of facilitating legislation, I felt that it in no way undermined the work that the committee was doing, and had the particular advantage that, should the committee bring down a decision to recommend this way and to support government policy, then there would be room for action to be taken on that very quickly.
It seems to me that the problem we have in the Territory with methadone is the lack of availability of methadone, and the lack of places. Mr Berry has pointed out that we have now gone to 119 places. If you extrapolate from the figures for methadone users in Sydney, where methadone is relatively freely available, you can see that Canberra will need a significant expansion in the number of places.
Mr Berry referred to a conflict of interest. One can also use exactly the same argument about the Bill being facilitating or allowing legislation rather than forcing legislation. At this stage I do not see that standing order 156 applies. I believe that it is Mrs Carnell's decision. If she wants to continue with this Bill, then I am happy to support her. I make those two points - firstly, it is facilitating legislation; secondly, I do not believe that this legislation undermines the work of the committee, which is why I had no objection to it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .