Page 1385 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
has been advocated by Mr Moore. It has received some support from the Government side; and I read with some interest the speech Mrs Carnell gave to the Young Liberals' national conference in January this year, when she gave in-principle support for the harm minimisation approach. So it is a valid approach which has received support across the chamber.
The Government cannot at this stage support it because, as we saw yesterday, it needs further thought on two categories. I want to take considered advice from a public health perspective on what this would mean, and I think that is very important. The Government, and my colleague Mr Lamont, feel equally strongly that we need to take some very considered advice on what this may mean in relation to Australia's sporting reputation. While it is true that Mr Moore has made it very clear that he does not encourage, indeed he joins us in condemning, the use of steroids by sporting persons, I am concerned about what signal we would be sending if Canberra were to be the first jurisdiction to adopt the harm minimisation approach on steroids and say, "We think small personal use of steroids is okay in this jurisdiction". I am worried about what signal that would send to our friends in Sydney who are planning the Olympic Games, to the Australian Institute of Sport, to the Australian Sports Drug Agency, and to overseas nations who look to Australia for leadership in the issue of controlling the abuse of drugs in sport. At the moment, if this issue were to go to a vote today, the Government would oppose these amendments and would maintain the position as agreed at the 1990 Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy.
In order to get the Government to change its position, I would want to see what the approach of other governments is. I am not sure what the approach is in New South Wales, and I think that is important. We do have sound reasons for disagreeing with the Government of New South Wales from time to time; but on an issue such as this I would want to have a sound reason for departing from the New South Wales approach, particularly given that the New South Wales Government is planning for the Olympics and that Sydney is the successful city. I would be loath to agree to anything, even if this Government agreed that there might be a sound philosophical reason for it, that was seen by the New South Wales Government to impact upon its Olympic bid. That is something we would think very long and hard about before we moved on it.
I want to get a view from the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, which is meeting in the next couple of weeks, and discuss this with my colleagues there. I know that Mr Lamont would want to discuss it with his colleagues as sports Ministers. It raises a very profound question: By endorsing this harm minimisation approach, which each major party has in the past indicated is a sound philosophical position for some areas of public health, would we be undermining public health strategies in relation to steroid abuse, which is very important? Would we be potentially undermining our reputation for control of drugs in sport? Could we inadvertently - I am sure that this would be the last thing Mr Moore would want to do - by agreeing to this approach, cause problems for the Olympic Games bid? It is a very important issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .