Page 2647 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Thursday, 15 October 1992
_________________________
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms McRae) took the chair at 10.30 am and read the prayer.
DRUGS - SELECT COMMITTEE
Report on Methadone Treatment Services
MR MOORE (10.31): Madam Speaker, pursuant to order, I present an interim report of the Select Committee on Drugs entitled "Methadone Treatment Services in the ACT", including a dissenting report, together with copies of minutes of proceedings, extracts of minutes of proceedings, and a copy of transcripts of evidence. I ask for leave to move a motion authorising the publication of the report.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: I move:
That the Assembly authorises the publication of the interim report of the Select Committee on Drugs entitled Methadone Treatment Services in the ACT.
Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I have moved that motion today. I had expected this morning to come in and move a simple motion to deal with the tabling of this report. Instead, I have been forced to move a motion that is required really for the protection of members of the secretariat. That is required because, in her dissenting report, Mrs Grassby has chosen to deal with an issue that is most likely defamatory. As such, it is important that not only Mrs Grassby but also members of the secretariat who are involved in distributing this report have the protection of this Assembly.
I say that it is with sadness, Madam Speaker, because this is the first time that any member of a committee has chosen to make a personal attack on another member of the committee as part of a dissenting report. It is to be distinguished from another report that appeared in this Assembly from the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee in which I put a dissenting report, personally, containing the same heading "Conflict of interest". In that case there was a major difference because there was nothing personal about that conflict of interest. In that case I had chosen to draw attention to the difficulties that the committee were in because Mr Norm Jensen was an Executive Deputy and also chair of the committee. The difference is clear. At no stage did I question the probity of Mr Jensen. In spite of many differences, and quite strong differences, with Mr Jensen, at no stage have I ever questioned his probity. I believe that no member of this Assembly has.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .