Page 1386 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Use of steroids in sport - an issue that was really not discussed some years ago - has rapidly come to the forefront. Australia has done a lot on this issue, and we can all be proud of the reputation we have for that. While Mr Moore says quite properly, and I accept what he says, that he does not condone the use of drugs in sport and that he would support moves against the use of drugs in sport, I am concerned that by adopting this harm minimisation approach, by saying that small quantities of steroids will be lawful in this jurisdiction, which may well put us out of kilter with the rest of Australia, we are sending a wrong and potentially damaging signal to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Mr Moore, at this stage the Government would oppose your proposals - not because we disagree with the harm minimisation philosophy, but because we think it raises profound issues for public health and the issue of sports and our reputation on sports drugs. The Government could be open to persuasion. If there were a view from other Ministers on the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy that this was sensible, that would obviously impact greatly on our thinking. If there were a positive view from the sporting fraternity, particularly those involved in the Olympics bid, and if the New South Wales Government, which has the prime responsibility for that Olympics administration, and our Federal colleagues, who are supporting that bid, felt that this was not a problem, the Government might well reconsider. But we would not wish to do anything that would put in jeopardy our reputation on steroids in sport, and the issue of the Olympics is a very important one.
I thank Mr Moore for the courtesy of saying that he does not want to push this today, because, if it were to be pushed, the Government would have to oppose it. I am not saying that the Government rules out a harm minimisation approach as a sensible strategy, because, indeed, in other contexts we have supported that, as has Mrs Carnell, as an abstract idea. So there is agreement on both sides of the chamber that the concept is a valid one. But on an issue such as drugs in sport and on an issue such as steroids, the stakes are very high. The Government would be very cautious before going down this path and would need to be convinced that it was the right course of action. At the moment, we would oppose it, and you would need to convince us on those grounds of public health. That may be the easier path to convince us on. You would also need to convince us on the issue of our reputation for sports and drugs and what this could mean and how this signal could be misinterpreted as we move into the pre-Olympic stage.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.02): Madam Speaker, the issue here, and I think Mr Connolly put it very well, is that everybody in this Assembly supports harm minimisation to some extent. The issue Mr Moore has brought up with his amendments is the definition of what is possession and what is supply. He has taken it somewhat further to suggest that possession of small quantities is not even possession at all; in fact, it is all right or acceptable to the community. I must admit that at this stage I would have trouble going that far, and I think the Liberal Party would have trouble going to the extent of suggesting that five tablets, 10 ampoules, or whatever it happens to be, should not be subject to a penalty at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .