Page 4273 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, there has been bipartisan support for the prevention of, the reduction in, and the testing of athletes for, the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. This Government has said, quite clearly, that we need a nationally consistent approach; that we need consistency between the State level organisations and State governments in accepting that a test conducted in the State of New South Wales should be consistent with tests undertaken on athletes competing in similar circumstances in Queensland, the ACT or any other State or Territory. The views that this Government has put to the SRMC have been the catalyst by which I am confident that such a nationally consistent approach will occur. I am also aware that the position that has been put by the ACT has led the Commonwealth to review the procedures for the Australian Sports Drug Agency and how its authority could or should be extended to the testing of State based athletes. I am concerned that the extension of such powers is consistent with the interests of sport, the eradication of sport - of performance enhancing drugs in sport, I am sorry - - -
Mr Humphries: The eradication of sport? That was a Freudian slip.
MR LAMONT: Continue to wipe your nose, I would suggest. That is probably the most beneficial contribution that you can make to this debate. I am confident that the position that we have adopted will achieve bipartisan support and will also demonstrate again that the ACT and all of its constituent parts - both within the Assembly and within the sports community - are committed to achieving a nationally consistent approach to the eradication of drugs in sport.
MR DE DOMENICO (10.24) Madam Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting the Government's motion. We agree with Mr Lamont that it is essential that there be a national consistency in the way in which sports drug testing is conducted in Australia. We also applaud the Minister, because it is true that one of the first duties of Mr Lamont, when he became the Minister for Sport, was to alert the Opposition to the fact that he intended, at some stage, to talk about mutual recognition legislation in terms of drugs in sport. It makes a lot of sense; it makes good sense. For that reason, the Opposition is delighted to support the motion.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
VICTIMS OF CRIME BILL 1994
[COGNATE BILL:
ACTS REVISION (VICTIMS OF CRIME) BILL 1994]
Debate resumed from 10 November 1994, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Acts Revision (Victims of Crime) Bill 1994? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 2 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 3.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .