Page 1388 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore's harm minimisation approach in relation to drug abuse is, in general, to be commended. We have had many debates in this chamber about the decriminalisation of the possession of marijuana, as an example, and there have been a number of other issues on which we have had extensive debate. When we are talking about harm minimisation, there is a negative effect to that process, and that is the implication I have just pointed out, Mr Connolly has pointed out, and Mrs Carnell has alluded to. I suppose we have an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, we have a proposal which suggests harm minimisation in the use of anabolic steroids; but, on the other hand, in doing that we are not minimising the harm people do in the macro sense, in the broader sense, and that is the concern I have as Sport Minister.
For all of those reasons I have suggested, it would be sending the wrong message. It would be doing us more harm to proceed down the road Mr Moore is suggesting. For that reason, I have indicated, as Mr Connolly has, that the Government has great difficulty in agreeing to Mr Moore's proposal; but I would welcome the opportunity to hold further discussions with the sporting community over the coming week, to allow this debate to be finalised after Ms Szuty adjourns it today.
MR MOORE (11.09): Madam Speaker, before this part of the debate is adjourned, I would like to make a couple of comments. It seems to me that if we go for prohibition of steroids we are going to have deaths. The language I hear being used today, at a much lower level, is the same language that has been presented to prohibit drugs for the last 100-odd years. Let me emphasise again that it is at a much lower level and with much more understanding; nevertheless, coming through behind it is the same sort of language - the language of sending mixed messages, of what the message is that we are sending young people.
I think it is important for us to realise that just because we do not make something illegal does not mean that we approve of it. Making something illegal is one way of saying, "We do not approve", but there are many things that are not illegal that we still do not approve of, and that is an issue we need to keep in mind. It is wrong to suggest that the message we will be sending to people is that we think it is okay to use steroids. That is not the message we will be sending at all. On the contrary, with the amendment I have presented to this legislation we will be saying that it is not okay. Quite clearly, the whole thrust of the legislation, however we put it, is one that is saying that it is not okay. On the other hand, we are also saying that we are not prepared to put people in gaol for personal possession. We are prepared to treat them in a health sense rather than through the criminal justice system. I think that is the important message we could learn.
In taking advice from people, as Mr Connolly and Mr Lamont have suggested, it is very important for us to get advice from Professor Peter Baume, who is probably the earliest and longest advocate of harm minimisation in Australia and who brought down a series of recommendations about drugs in sport. His view is the view shared by everybody here, as I understand it: Once we talk about drugs in sport, we are talking about cheating, which puts it in an entirely different perspective. It is that cheating that we want to avoid in terms of the Sydney Olympics, I agree. I do not want to put that at risk, but at the same time I am particularly concerned about the health of individuals who are determined to use steroids.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .