Page 1384 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What will happen here will be the same as has happened wherever we have made other drugs totally illicit. People will use them very dangerously, without advice; they will continue to use them, and they will continue to use steroids that come from veterinary supplies. I am sure Mrs Carnell will agree that that is already what is on the market in terms of steroids that are not prescribed. That is why we have one person who takes a broader view and says that we must look after the health of individual people who are determined to go down this line.
When I had this amendment drawn up, Parliamentary Counsel drew to my attention the difficulty of defining tablets and ampoules in the legislation. The advice I was given was that a single tablet may be 20 grams or it may be 40 grams, and so there will be a different intensity. Therefore, there is some difficulty with the way the legislation is set up. To extrapolate further from that, if there were a single tablet of a huge size, that could be a way of getting around this legislation.
I think this part of the legislation does need further review. We ought to take a little more time to discuss with the people who are most involved - I discussed this matter with Mr Connolly this morning - including those involved in public health as well as those involved in the sporting community, these issues and what their approach would be, to see whether we can find a more sensible approach, and, at the same time, resolve the matter of the number of tablets and the number of ampoules. It is for that reason, after we have had some general indication from members about this amendment, that Ms Szuty will be moving the adjournment of the debate.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (10.55): The amendments Mr Moore has moved raise a very substantial issue of principle which, at the moment, the Government would not be able to support. The Bill, as it has emerged from the original Opposition Bill and the amendments that I understand will be agreed to by the Opposition, implements in the ACT a nationally agreed strategy on dealing with steroid use and abuse. As I said in my earlier remarks, that was important when it was agreed to in 1990. It is probably more important now, given that Sydney is going to host the Olympic Games, and that we are a city that is working closely with Sydney to get benefit to Canberra from the Olympic Games, and that we all support the Canberra Olympic Committee and their important work to ensure that we get the maximum benefit. We are proud of the fact that we host the Australian Institute of Sport and that the Australian Sports Drug Agency, with its valuable international reputation, is based in Canberra. Again, as I said earlier, Australia's reputation on sports drug issues was an important factor in getting the Olympic Games to Sydney.
Mr Moore is presenting here an important issue of principle, which is to say that we should adopt a harm minimisation approach to the issue of steroids. That is an issue that has received the support of the majority of this Assembly in other contexts. A majority of this Assembly did take the view in relation to personal use quantities of cannabis that a harm minimisation approach may be to provide an on-the-spot fine for a defined small amount of cannabis. This amendment goes further. This does not just refer to an on-the-spot fine; this actually says that it is all right to possess a certain amount and that there will be an on-the-spot fine for a larger amount. This is going significantly further than the cannabis harm minimisation approach, but that is an approach that philosophically
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .