Page 4570 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You were also at one stage waxing lyrical about how the Liberal Party would be in favour of the commercial use of cannabis. I interjected saying, "Do you really mean commercial? Do you not mean research for medical purposes?", and you said no, you were keen on the commercial use - obviously playing for the Dennis Stevenson vote. You had one position on Wednesday, another position on Thursday, and another position on Friday. You do not know what the position was on the weekend. Then, today, sensibly - - -
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I can understand the Minister's face getting itchy again. We know that Mrs Carnell qualified her comment about commercial uses of hemp when she made that reference, and Mr Connolly knows that. That is the problem, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: I do not see quite why that is the point of order.
MR CONNOLLY: No, nor do I; but I understand that Mr Moore is deeply agitated and I am prepared to give him latitude. As I say, Mrs Carnell's position has been chopping and changing all week. But, finally, this afternoon commonsense prevailed and Mrs Carnell and the Liberals - I am sure that it was a relief to the Liberal Party room - voted with the Government to rescind what they did last week. That was very sensible. However, now we are back on the merry-go-round. Let us go around once again. This is indeed stupid, Mrs Carnell; your words are absolutely correct. We once again get an amendment to the Drugs of Dependence Act. We are blundering around, changing the law in relation to clinical trials on drugs. We get to see this amendment when it is circulated in this place, not even before lunch. Who has seen this? Has the AMA seen this? Has the Australian Federal Police Association seen this? Do we have documents saying that they are in favour of it? What do they think of it? We did not know what you were doing.
This Government has, and I think Mr Moore adverted to this, a quite proud record of law reform. The reason we have been able to achieve so much law reform is that we take the public with us. We engage in long and extensive consultation. The tabling of the Bill of Rights which will happen in this place in a couple of days' time shows the stark contrast between this Labor Government's approach to law reform and this ramshackle, knee-jerk reaction adhockery from the other side. We go out; we explain what we propose to do; we issue discussion papers; we bring the community with us. You just blunder ahead and do it anyway. We continue to have concerns about what you are doing. I have said, and it remains the position, that we do believe that work should be done on the potential medical benefits of cannabis. As the national drug strategy people have said, we should be coordinating this. You have been led by Mr Moore. Mrs Carnell and Mr Moore cut a deal on this and the Liberal Party, lemming-like, goes over the cliff with Mrs Carnell. Here you are today trying to justify a backflip.
Our main problem, and our great difficulty with this legislation, is this, and I will run through this fairly slowly. I hope that members opposite will pay some attention to it. I notice that we not only have the Carnell amendments that we had not seen until half an hour ago - - -
Mrs Carnell: No, only you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .