Page 4569 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What we have done today is bring forward an amendment that clarifies the position. It makes sure that section 33 of the Act, which has regard to medical research, is definitely linked to the amendment as it stands today. As Mr Refshauge says, the line of supply has been clarified. First of all, Mr Refshauge says that the Minister's legal advice raises three issues. He then goes on to say:
... in my opinion the proposed amendment ... does, however, address two of the concerns raised by the Government Solicitor and, in my view, adequately and effectively address them. As to the third issue, the changed context of the amendment removes any reasonable concern about it.
Therefore, all three issues have been addressed in the amendment and, unless you do not believe Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson and Richard Refshauge, it brings it into line with what, supposedly, we all meant to do last week. Mr Connolly himself said last week that he supported properly conducted medical research into cannabis.
As the last extension of the truth, Mr Connolly suggested that under the current legislation there was capacity for action not to be taken against somebody who possessed small amounts of cannabis as part of a medical trial under section 160 of the legislation. The fact of the matter is that that is not the case either. It protects everyone else known to man. It protects doctors, nurses, people associated, researchers - everybody but the patient. All we are trying to do today is clarify the position we put last week. It is something that still needs to be worked on. The approach we have to take to drug law reform in this area is a difficult one; but, boy, did the Minister make it more difficult last week by taking the tack of putting out into the public arena information that simply was not true. The people who made comments were not party to the amendment. He did not actually send the amendment to the people he told about it; he sent them a press release. The fact is that the Minister's approach to this whole situation is totally unacceptable.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (4.17): What a sad day for the Assembly and what a bitter, ugly, petulant performance by the Leader of the Opposition! After Mr Moore's obsession with my face and my nose, without making any references to lying, I would say that the only noses that have grown around here are those of the Liberals, who have been led by the nose by their leader, who appears to have been led by the nose by Mr Moore. The once great Liberal Party must really be wondering where it is going here.
Mrs Carnell: Commonsense.
MR CONNOLLY: "Commonsense", chortles the Opposition Leader. That is one quality that has been sadly lacking over the last week, from the time when you acted in this extraordinary manner to spring this reform on the people of the ACT, through the various positions you have adopted since. On Wednesday of last week you were quite clear. You did not want medical research with bells and whistles, you said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .