Page 221 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Poisons (Amendment) Bill 1992 is the second of a package of three Bills which includes the Poisons and Drugs (Amendment) Bill 1992 and the Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill (No. 5) 1992. The Bill contains amendments to the Poisons Act 1933 consequential upon the Poisons and Drugs (Amendment) Bill 1992. For example, licensing of vendors of Schedule 7 poisons will be incorporated into the Poisons and Drugs Act 1978 by the Poisons and Drugs (Amendment) Bill 1992; therefore the Poisons (Amendment) Bill 1992 contains consequential amendments to omit the licensing of vendors of such poisons from the Act. The Bill also removes sexist language from the Poisons Act, in line with government policy. I also commend the Poisons (Amendment) Bill to you for adoption.
The Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill is the third in this package. The purpose of the Bill is to transfer the three schedules which consist of drugs of dependence, prohibited drugs of dependence and drugs of dependence whose manufacture is controlled by provisions in the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 from the Drugs of Dependence Act Regulations. This will facilitate the adoption of the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council in regard to drugs of dependence which are listed in Schedule 8 of the standard for the uniform scheduling of drugs and poisons, and so will assist in fulfilling the Territory's commitment to the harmonisation of drugs and poisons scheduling throughout Australia. The opportunity has also been taken to facilitate prosecutions in regard to offences against the Act by the introduction of evidentiary certificates. The Bill is an essential part of the package of three Bills. I commend the Bills to the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I think the carriage of these Bills will demonstrate to the community that the Government has got its priorities right. Too often we hear from the Opposition - and I suppose that this is the Opposition's job - that it is too fast or too slow; we are spending too little or too much; we are too much of the right or too much of the left, and so on. It is farcical, though, for a member of the Opposition to draw comparisons between this piece of legislation and the Health Bill which has been placed before this Assembly. That is a piece of legislation which covers the entire management of our public hospital system. To be critical of the introduction of that at an early stage is absolute lunacy; you cannot compare the two. The two pieces of legislation are to do with entirely different matters, but I know that the Liberals do not care about the public health system. In fact, ever since the Liberals were elected to this Assembly, Mrs Carnell in particular has been intent on attacking it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .