Page 4465 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (4.18): Madam Speaker, Mr Moore is right to say that this is a serious matter, a matter of great concern - both the issue that it raises and the consequence of the issue that it raises. This is not the first time that a motion of no confidence has been moved in a Minister, including Chief Ministers, and it is not a matter that any of us should take lightly. Let me say, briefly, that the Liberal Party is yet to determine what to do about this motion. While Mr Berry may choose to giggle about it - he thinks it is a very amusing matter - I do take very seriously what does appear to be a prima facie case of Mr Connolly having - I can only assume quite deliberately - misled the house. Mr Connolly has been, apparently, very anxious in the last 24 hours to paint a particular picture about the actions of the Assembly yesterday in passing the amendment to the Drugs of Dependence Act and in doing so he has made what seem to me to be fairly extreme statements about this matter. What he said outside the house is not immediately a matter for concern in here.
Mr Lamont: It is of no concern.
MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, it might not be a matter for direct concern in this place; but, certainly, what he says to this house is a matter which is subject to the protocols and the conventions which are built up around matters concerning misleading of the house. The consequence of deliberately misleading the house, I think, Madam Speaker, is fairly well outlined and is fairly clear to this house and to all members in it, particularly Mr Berry. Madam Speaker, I have read this legal opinion which Mr Connolly has tabled and I have also heard what I think I heard Mr Connolly say about open slather.
Mr Moore: In this house.
MR HUMPHRIES: In this house; what he said in this house about open slather. He did say, repeatedly, to the best of my recollection, that the passing of yesterday's amendments would make it open slather for people to be supplied with cannabis. That is my impression of what Mr Connolly said. Madam Speaker, that is what I heard Mr Connolly say, and that is not what the advice which he has tabled in this place says. The advice is quite expressly different from what Mr Connolly has said in this place. I read from the first page of that legal opinion. It says:
The amendment does not cover the supply of cannabis. Should a person be certified in writing by a medical practitioner engaged in medical research to have a physical or mental condition such that the use of cannabis may be appropriate for the treatment of that condition, then the mere possession or cultivation or consumption of cannabis by that person would not be prosecuted as an offence.
That is the effect of this section 171B we have inserted in the Act. The opinion continues:
However, the supply of cannabis to that person would still be an offence under the supply provisions as set out in section 165 of the Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .