Page 4332 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a political exercise. Mr Moore, who is very open about his agenda - and I respect him for his agenda - does believe that cannabis should be decriminalised totally. I respect Mr Moore's openness about what he believes. We know that Mr Moore has been given some international recognition, and properly so, for being a politician who is prepared to take that agenda and run with it, and congratulations, Mr Moore. Having come back from a meeting, he approached me the other day saying, "I think we should look at medical research". We had a discussion where I effectively said to him in private what I have said today in public, namely, "I understand what you are saying; but the clinical evidence is not there, in my view. There is no clinical demand in Canberra. As Health Minister, I can tell you that, because there have been no proposals for it. But we would be happy to use the very careful provisions of the existing Act to facilitate that serious research".
We then see an amendment circulated yesterday which, in terms of medical use of cannabis, is a very radical step forward. This is a very radical measure, members of the Opposition. I do not know what you were told in your party room. Basically, this says that, if any medical practitioner signs a document to say, "I am interested in the research benefit of cannabis; I am interested in cannabis treating a condition", it is lawful to use that cannabis. There is nothing about where the cannabis is to be obtained, so the doctor signs this off and says, "Yes, you have chronic pain. I have read some papers that suggest that cannabis may be useful for chronic pain. I am going to keep your case notes, as any doctor would; therefore you qualify. I will sign it off. You are free to use cannabis". Where is the person going to get the cannabis? What are the security arrangements going to be for that cannabis? Are we going to be sending people out into the illicit market to obtain cannabis?
If we get to the point where we have serious and incontrovertible medical research in Australia that says that cannabis is beneficial, we should consider it. Cannabis is a drug. Mrs Carnell says that it is a plant. Yes, it is; but it is the THC which is a drug that is useful. I could not imagine any other context in which politicians would do a political deal to say, "Let us change the law to say that a drug can be clinically trialled because we think it is an issue that we can look progressive on". This is a very serious step that we are about to take here. The Government has tried to be responsible, to be sympathetic to Mr Moore's objective, because we understand that he believes vehemently in decriminalisation. We have some sympathy with what Mr Moore says and we have gone a way down the path.
On the issue of the medical use of cannabis, we say that it is something that should be looked at. But members should look at the structure of Part 4 of the Drugs of Dependence Act. It is very carefully worded; it has provisions for the clinical protocols; it has provisions for arrangements for the security of cannabis. Is it a good thing to say to an old lady in a terminal stage of cancer, or with advanced glaucoma and approaching blindness, who is living alone, "You should have five hooch plants in your backyard."? For how long are those plants going to stay there? You are going to be setting up a super target in the suburbs. If we are to go down the path of the medicinal use of cannabis, we need to have in place provisions for the licit, lawful, safe and secure supply of the substance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .