Page 2160 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first one is that, in doing so, in looking for a collegiate way of operating, we should make sure that the committees look at this in an open manner. But springing this on an Assembly without having discussed this issue with the opposition is a bit of a Labor-Green stitch-up or Labor working by themselves. I just make the point that if we want to have a committee system that works cooperatively, if you want to have a look at this in a true bipartisan sense, so that we get the best outcome for the community, some advance notice from the government that this was their intention would have been useful. I just make that point, because there are many times in this chamber when we get told, as I was yesterday: “We can’t support particular amendments because we have not had enough notice to see them. We have only had an hour to look at it.” I have had about 15 seconds to consider what Dr Bourke is proposing. I do not think it is particularly helpful in this regard.
As Mr Rattenbury has alluded to, there has been an inquiry by the New South Wales parliament into this issue. That was an inquiry into the issue of medical marijuana more generally. I would ask that, in this referral, the committee not specifically look just at this piece of legislation: this legislation is necessarily limited in its scope, and any inquiry that looks into this issue needs to have a broad look at the issue of medical marijuana, going beyond the scope of just the legislation.
This is a complex issue. I put on the record that the opposition would be very unlikely to support Mr Rattenbury’s legislation in its current form. But that said, we are very open to having a discussion, to looking at this issue. It is a complex issue. I think we would all agree that we want to come up with good solutions to make sure that those who are terminally ill and people suffering from chronic pain have access to the best and most appropriate medical treatment.
I do have a different view from Mr Rattenbury when it comes to the issue of the ACT acting alone. This is consistent with the opposition’s views on many issues. I think it is a reality that if there is going to be a change to cannabis laws in the ACT, it would be far better that they were in synchronisation and consistent with federal and New South Wales laws. It is a reality that we are a very small jurisdiction and we are surrounded by the large state of New South Wales. If the ACT were to go alone on these matters, that would create unnecessary complexity. So as we move forward with this issue, we should work very closely with New South Wales and with the federal government.
That said, we support the referral of this matter, and I look forward to the committee’s deliberations.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Executive business—precedence
Ordered that executive business be called on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video