Page 4326 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have sympathy with Mr Moore's public policy goal, which is essentially to say that there is some evidence to suggest that cannabis may be useful in a medicinal context, that there is some evidence to suggest that it is helpful for cases of advanced glaucoma, for patients suffering pain from advanced cases of cancer, and for advanced cases of AIDS. I sympathise with the attitude that we should look very seriously at this, but we are not prepared to support the amendment at this stage. We think the serious clinical research should be done, because it has not been done to the point where there is that level of acceptance in the medical community that this is an appropriate form of treatment. The most serious recent research on the subject says that there is some evidence to suggest that this may have a valid use for medicinal purposes, but not enough research has been done.
Canberra would provide an appropriate place for the research to be done, if there are researchers keen to do the work. We have expertise in one of the principal areas - glaucoma. We also are becoming recognised as something of a centre of excellence for oncology treatment. Bone marrow treatment, the final phase of bringing oncology up to world levels here, will be on line next year. So, there is scope for research in both oncology applications and ophthalmology applications in Canberra; there is the John Curtin School with a worldwide reputation in both areas of research; there is the University of Sydney establishing its clinical presence in Canberra, with the conjoint professorial appointments coming through; and there is the establishment of the Canberra Medical Research Centre. We have the infrastructure now to do the research seriously. We have the legislative base to allow that research to be done in a proper, careful and controlled manner.
The Government's view would be: Let the clinicians and researchers do that research and come back to the community at some stage in the future and, if we have clear medical consensus that cannabis does have a role in medicinal use, an amendment such as Mr Moore's, or even one going further that would allow it not just for research purposes but for general treatment purposes, is one the Government could well be prepared to support; indeed, the Opposition could well be prepared to support it. At this stage we think we need to walk before we run. We need to do the serious clinical trials in Canberra before we have a simple process that says that a general medical practitioner can sign off a document to say that cannabis can be used. We would be prepared to do that; I would be prepared to grant those authorisations, if there are people in the research community who want to go through this, and they would have to go through their funding processes. Saying publicly in this place that we would be prepared to grant those approvals, I would be interested to hear the Opposition's view on whether they would be prepared to grant those approvals. It could be very useful for somebody seeking funding grants to have unanimity about such research being approved. Given the international importance of discovering once and for all the benefits of cannabis, I think there is a real likelihood that that research could be conducted in Canberra in the near future.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.12): Madam Speaker, as will the Government, we will be supporting some parts of Mr Moore's amendment Bill and not others. Again, similar to the Government, we support the police retaining some discretion in the area of simple cannabis offences. At this stage we have seen no evidence to suggest that the current situation is not working fairly well. Again, if we could be provided with any evidence to suggest that the police were in some way misusing that discretion,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .