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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2860 ..

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Debate resumed from 29 August 2000, on motion by Mr Moore:

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.05): Mr Speaker, this bill will amend the Poisons and Drugs Act 1978 to increase the penalty for illegal supply of anabolic steroids to five years imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. The penalties at present are six months imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. It is probably fair to say that this is Mr Moore's response to the zero tolerance and get tough on drugs campaign that he is now a part of. The bill will also update the list of anabolic steroids in schedule 1 of the act.

Labor will support the bill, though with some misgivings. The first reason for our reluctance is the haste with which the bill is being dealt with. It was introduced last Tuesday and we are debating it today. We have concerns about the introduction and debate of legislation at that speed. It is also notable that the minister in his presentation speech said the approach of the Sydney Olympics had led to calls for stronger restrictions on anabolic steroids and that this bill would amend our legislation prior to the Olympics. I think it is something of a longbow to draw an analogy between the need for haste and the Olympic Games. The Olympics are a week away. I would have thought that anybody interested in using anabolic steroids in their preparation for the Olympics would have well and truly done so by now and would have taken whatever measures they need to take to ensure that they are not negatively tested as a result of any illegal usage of drugs. I think for the minister to link this bill with the Olympics and to use the Olympics as a justification for the need for haste is somewhat spurious.

The minister advised us that the use of anabolic steroids is presently under review by a number of national bodies, including the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, the Police Ministers Conference and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. An argument could have been made for perhaps leaving any adjustment to this piece of legislation until those national reviews of the use of anabolic steroids had been completed.

In support of the change, however, is the fact that, while the penalty is being substantially increased, it applies only to illegal supply. The penalty for self-administration or administration to someone else has been left at six months imprisonment or a fine of $5,000. I am aware of Mr Moore's previous interest in those provisions and an earlier attempt to repeal them. The penalties we are debating are consistent with the approach that has been adopted nationally and by other states.

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