Page 4482 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries indicated that Mr Connolly had used the words "open slather" in relation to the supply of cannabis. When he made those remarks I found it hard to recall whether Mr Connolly had used the words "open slather" in relation to the supply of cannabis. He has certainly used the words "open slather". There has been a very heated political debate since the passage of the amendment to the Drugs of Dependence Act yesterday in this Assembly. I believe that when Mr Humphries referred to Mr Connolly's use of the words "open slather" he was referring to them in the context of the supply of cannabis, and that is certainly not how I recall Mr Connolly using those words.
The second issue is Mr Moore's belief that Mr Connolly had misquoted the AIDS Action Council. I wrote in my notes at the time Mr Moore was speaking that I believed that Mr Connolly was referring to a personal conversation that he had had with Mr Gillett in Garema Place today. I note the letter from Matthew Gillett, the general manager of the AIDS Action Council, which I believe confirms the statement that Mr Connolly made during question time. I agree with the Minister; I took it as an aside. I was listening and I heard Mr Connolly pause. Mr Connolly said that he was a bit hesitant about recounting a personal conversation. I must admit that that is the impression that I got when he was speaking.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that the no-confidence motion against Mr Connolly has no substance. Mr Moore began his remarks by drawing the analogy between the no-confidence motion that the Assembly is dealing with today and the no-confidence motion that we dealt with some months ago in relation to Mr Berry. I see the two situations as being different. I do not see them as similar in any way. I certainly will not be supporting the no-confidence motion, and I do not believe that there are grounds for a censure motion against Mr Connolly either. As I said earlier, I think this debate has been heated and full of political invective. It is not a debate that I would relish. What has been said by a number of members taking part in this debate has been quite inflammatory. If there appear to be problems with a particular amendment that this Assembly passed yesterday, I hope that we can all calmly revisit it and end up with an amendment which we are all sure does exactly what we intend it to do.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.14): Madam Speaker, I express my appreciation for the comments just made by Ms Szuty. They bear out the claims made by the Attorney-General in his answer to the original proposition put by Mr Moore. My staff, as you would appreciate, keep a fairly close ear on question time because of the need, at times, to supply additional information to members and to ensure that we pick up any suggestions that are being made by the Assembly in relation to matters for which I have responsibility.
It so happens that in respect of today's question time I am advised that the intent and the import which both Ms Szuty and Mr Connolly have put on the statements referred to by Mr Moore are entirely accurate. Mr Moore asked a question about what Mr Gillett said about the legislation, and Mr Connolly responded in words that imported that he put out a press release saying that they support serious research in cannabis. Mr Gillett did not say that he supported the Moore Bill and he said to Mr Connolly today that they are not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .