Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3586 ..

MR MOORE (5.54): There is just one thing I cannot let go, Mr Speaker. I accept that there was not any particular sinister motive; it was just one of those things that slipped through. I think that was the main point Ms McRae was making, and I do not disagree with that. But I think the critical thing about this sort of regulation is that it takes the power from the parliament and leaves the power with the Executive. It is the parliament that passes Acts. What it would allow is the Executive to undo something that the parliament had enacted. To me, that is the important part. It was not sinister.

I think another important point is that it was within a very narrow scope. It could apply to anything consequential upon the transfer of responsibility for the university from the Commonwealth to the Territory. So, it was a very narrow application. It applied not just to this Act but to a whole range of Acts. Nevertheless, there is a principle, and that is what we are dealing with. I think that is what we have agreed with.

Amendment agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 25 September 1997, on motion by Mrs Carnell:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (5.55): Mr Speaker, Labor will be supporting this Bill. The explanatory memorandum sets out in detail the effects of the proposed amendments in relation to the use of drugs in Class I and Class II institutions and the difficulties which have been faced by health professionals in the past in relation to these matters. There are a couple of issues of principle which I think one should talk about in this context. One is the use of drugs generally. Health professionals are not isolated from the use of drugs of dependence. It has been reported on many occasions in the past that health professionals have, indeed, used these sorts of drugs. What we have to do, of course, is remain vigilant to ensure that these sorts of processes are properly policed.

On the face of it, one could say that this is a relaxation of the laws which might lead to circumstances held to be undesirable. I trust that that is not the case. I note that there has been an involvement by relevant organisations to ensure that this matter is properly considered. I refer to the multidisciplinary committee - I almost mispronounced it because it is misspelt in the explanatory memorandum - which comprised members from the ACT Nurses Board, the Australian Federal Police, the ACT Government Solicitor's Office, the ACT Chief Pharmacist and the Canberra Hospital. I note that that is spelt with a small "t", which I am sure just escaped somebody's attention editorially. That is about the strongest criticism I could make of the explanatory memorandum and the substance of the issue.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .