Page 4333 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What has happened is that in a press release two days ago Mr Moore said, "I am interested in medical research of cannabis". It suddenly became an amendment to a Bill, which we saw yesterday, which was a very radical and open slather approach to cannabis use. There are existing provisions in the Act for serious research in a controlled manner into the medicinal properties of cannabis. There have been absolutely no requests from researchers or clinicians to do that research. I have said publicly, and I have said again today, that we would be happy to go down that path.
Members, Liberal Party members in particular, do think hard about this; think about what you do. Obviously, political deals are being cut here. That is the way in which the process operates. Could anyone seriously imagine that for any other drug - and the active property of cannabis is a drug - we, as a group of politicians, would pass special laws which provided that, if a doctor wanted to trial RU486, it was lawful to have it as long as a doctor had signed a document saying, "I am going to trial it."? If a doctor wanted to trial a thalidomide drug - - -
Mrs Carnell: That is exactly what happened.
MR CONNOLLY: No; it is not, Mrs Carnell. THC is a naturally occurring drug; but to trial any synthetic drug there is a massively complex process that requires that drug to go through clinical trials; it requires approval from Commonwealth authorities to get the drug into the country or to put it on sale; it requires extensive clinical protocols for the trial of the drug. Those procedures are simple, and those safeguards are in the Act. We are sympathetic to the medicinal use of cannabis. But you have to prove it; you must have that research. It is not being done in Australia.
There are various articles from the United States and from Europe, but there is no consensus in Australia that this is a valid medicinal tool. The most recent reports are saying that more research needs to be done. We say, "Yes, we are happy to have that research done; but it should be done properly". It would be inconceivable that we would pass a law saying, "Do not bother about all those Commonwealth clinical trial protocols for other synthetic drugs. This Assembly thinks that RU486 or some other new synthetic compound is going to be useful for the treatment of whatever condition, and we will pass a law that says that, if a GP wants to do research on it, that is fine". We would not do that. It would be irresponsible to do that. I say to members: Think very long and hard about what you are doing. We are not trying to be difficult here; we are not trying to embarrass Mr Moore. We are not saying that we are opposed to Mr Moore's philosophy that we should de-stigmatise cannabis or that we should draw a distinction between cannabis and heroin, cocaine, crack or the more serious drugs and amphetamines; we have shown that we are supportive of the reduction in the level of criminality of cannabis by the on-the-spot fines.
Mr Moore brought the Bill into the Assembly. The Government did a lot of work on the Bill and at national forums of Police Ministers and Health Ministers. Mr Moore is not under the hammer for that proposal; I am. I am the one who defends it; and I am happy to do so, because it was the right move. It is a move in the right direction. Members, what Mr Moore is proposing is something that he genuinely believes in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .