Page 4555 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not doubt the good intentions of supporters of clause 5 of the amendment Bill. Their intentions clearly were to provide an alternative form of relief to people suffering from some illnesses where other drugs, other management regimes, had proved either inadequate or not efficacious. However, good intentions are not enough. This Assembly does have a responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass are well thought through and will not bring about unintended consequences which could disadvantage or endanger our community. The best means of ensuring that legislation is well considered, that it is safe, and that it is of benefit to the community rather than the reverse, is to give the community an opportunity to see it, to consider it, and to comment on it before it is passed in the Assembly. Clearly, this process of consultation was overlooked or was not adequate in relation to clause 5.
It was very apparent that, as the criticism of clause 5 mounted late last week, the Leader of the Opposition was floundering in her explanations of it and her support for it and of the advice she had received about it - advice which she has not sought to share with any of us. Mrs Carnell repeatedly contradicted herself and finally was forced to admit that what the Government had said all along was true, that is, that the legislation was fatally flawed. The mismanagement of this issue by the Liberals and the Independents, I believe, has thrown the Assembly back to the bad old days of the previous Assembly and has given to the community the impression of confusion, of rushing in where angels fear to tread, and of taking, simply on the numbers, because we have had minority governments, very ill-considered decisions. Clause 5 clearly does need to be reconsidered. I have heard Mrs Carnell admit as much, and I therefore urge all members to exercise their commonsense and support this motion.
MR MOORE (3.28): In opposing this motion, I will argue that we do not need to reconsider clause 5 of the Bill. We do not need to consider the motion because the legislation is sensible legislation. Mr Connolly came into this house and, in order to emphasise his point, he used what he had, with a department ready to assist him. He brought into this house a legal opinion which said, amongst other things, that the amendment was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the Drugs of Dependence Act and appeared to have some unforeseen results. The term "medical research" was not restricted by the provisions of Part IV of the Drugs of Dependence Act and could have a very wide and possibly unrealistic interpretation.
This Attorney-General has a great deal of power, in that he can get such legal opinions at relatively short notice and, of course, without having to pay for them. It is much harder for members of the Opposition or on the cross benches to get legal opinions. However, I have done so. I shall quote selectively for the moment, but I will be happy to table the legal opinion in due time. Because I have a very brief time, I shall quote selectively, not to criticise the particular officer who provided the legal opinion but rather to illustrate that legal opinions are just that - opinions. For every legal opinion that is given there is almost invariably someone who would be able to give an opposite legal opinion, and Mr Connolly knows that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .