Page 4334 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have no doubt about that, because he has been genuine on this. His agenda is open, and he says, "Yes, I do want full decriminalisation. I do think this drug should be available as a matter of choice". It is a very radical step. It is a step that is basically saying, "Do not worry about the very careful and controlled method of research for introducing a drug into the community, as contained in the Drugs of Dependence Act. If somebody thinks that they would like to treat a patient by using cannabis, all the doctor has to do is sign it off and they can do it. All they have to do is keep some notes about the treatment". Obviously, they would do that. That is not the clinical research - - -
Mrs Carnell: It is also not research.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes; it is, Mrs Carnell. You have no definition of research. This Act, the existing law, has a structure in it. I bet that you have never even read it, Mrs Carnell. We could do a little quiz on it, but I will not embarrass you. There is a very careful structure in the Act for the research to be approved; for clinical protocols; for security protocols for the drug - because people will commit crimes to obtain cannabis, people will mug people to get their cannabis and people will break into a house to get the cannabis that is growing there. That is a really good thing to inflict on people in the community! There are enormous safeguards.
The Liberal Opposition, in doing a political deal, is about to make Australia's most radical cannabis law, on one day's notice. We saw the Bill yesterday. People in this community who sometimes get cynical about the antics of this Assembly would have serious cause to be cynical about this process. We are being responsible. We are saying that the medicinal use of cannabis needs to be looked at. The structure is there, but this is an incredible leap in faith into the unknown.
MR STEVENSON (11.40): It is reasonable to agree that the cannabis amendment is a radical step. There is nothing wrong with radical steps; it depends whether or not they are beneficial. Mr Connolly mentions, quite rightly, that the proposal has just come to notice; we have not had time to consider it. The Chief Minister nods her head in agreement, and I can understand why. There are cases where legislation or proposed changes to legislation have been proposed to this Assembly without time for community consultation. Item 4 on the notice paper today is my matter that would require a minimum of 60 days before matters can be debated, unless they are considered to be urgent, and agreed upon as such; or unless they are considered to be a minor administrative matter, and agreed upon as such.
We hear again and again that point borne out in debates in this Assembly; and this is one. One of the most important things about this radical suggestion is that there has not been time for community consultation. There has also not been a call from the community. I take Mr Connolly's point. However, it does not mean to say that there would not be a call if the community were aware of the benefits or the problems associated with something, and this is why there should be allowed minimum times for consultation. Perhaps, from what Mr Connolly said, I could be forgiven for thinking that the Labor Party position on making sure that Canberrans have a minimum time to consider proposals may have changed from when they said that they were not going to agree with that when the debate started a few short weeks ago.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .