Page 4568 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He did not say that this could happen; he said that if it happened the doctor involved would be subject to medical discipline. That is exactly what we said in the house last week; but Mr Connolly went on to say that they could prescribe it for anything from the common cold up and anyone could use it. Absolute rubbish! They would be deregistered, to quote Brendan Nelson. But you did not want to quote that; all you wanted to do was put out into the community information that could be - - -
Mr De Domenico: He wanted to play politics.
MRS CARNELL: To play politics with medicine. That is what it was all about. He very happily overlooked his own party policy, which, no matter how you look at it, says that possession and use of cannabis for personal purposes should not be a punishable offence. All we were saying was that legal proceedings should not happen for people involved in medical research conducted by a medical practitioner. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party's own platform would mean that possession and use of cannabis for personal purposes, for recreational purposes, would not be punishable. It is simply unacceptable.
Turning to Mr Refshauge, whom Mr Wood quoted in question time today, I think, he says:
Thus, although it seemed to me that there was no internal inconsistency in Mr Moore's amendment, the proposed amendment has clarified the position and made the "line of supply" more patent and brought it more clearly within the terms and structure of the Act.
I think Mr Refshauge is the one who sums up the reason we have brought forward this amendment today. It is not because, as Mr Berry and others have said, the Liberal Party is backflipping on this issue. The Liberal Party strongly believes in research into whatever substance is involved, but - - -
Mr Lamont: Three of your members over here are telling you that you are backflipping.
MRS CARNELL: Which ones?
Mr Lamont: Everybody could see through the window.
MRS CARNELL: That was, as you know, to do with a no-confidence motion in Mr Connolly. The stench of hypocrisy on this issue is quite remarkable. It is absolutely remarkable that, because the Minister has put out information that is simply untrue and incorrect, we are placed in this position. We believe that legislation should not be open to misinterpretation, that legislation should be as tight as possible. The Opposition last week in the Assembly said categorically, "We support properly conducted medical research into cannabis". We stand by that position. Every single one of us stands by that position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .