Page 4588 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe without reservation that Mr Moore is correct about the effect of his amendment, and I refer to the comment he made most recently that this amendment is about the fact that fines are not instituted and proceedings do not lie against a person in respect of the alleged commission of a simple cannabis offence under these particular circumstances. If members refer to the appropriate section of the Drugs of Dependence Act, the heading that precedes the cannabis medicinal use provision is "Offence notices", section 171A. I think Mr Moore has quite appropriately couched his amendment in terms which relate to that provision of the Act. I note Mr Moore's attempt to make cannabis available to people in particularly dire circumstances, and we have all heard over the last week about people who suffer from glaucoma, AIDS and terminal cancer. I commend Mr Moore for his compassionate approach to these people in raising this amendment in these circumstances.
I would like to refer to the issue the Labor Government has raised - that we should not be considering this amendment in the ACT because we should be doing something at a national level, in a national forum. I remember listening to Mr Connolly this morning, talking about his - - -
Mr De Domenico: Like the Bill of Rights, nationally.
MS SZUTY: Exactly, Mr De Domenico. He was talking about his Bill of Rights, saying that in some circumstances it is appropriate for a jurisdiction to take a lead in relation to a particular issue. That is exactly what Mr Moore's amendment does in these circumstances. I think the analogy is particularly ironic, given that the draft legislation is Mr Connolly's own legislation.
I also agree with Mr Moore that the amendments proposed by the Liberals do not add anything to the provisions of the Act as they currently apply, and I believe that Mr Moore is right in that these amendments should not be supported. But he has gone further and indicated to the Assembly that he is looking for support for his own amendment to Mrs Carnell's amendment, which would add something to the current legislation and protect people in circumstances where they are cultivating cannabis themselves.
I am aware that Mr Moore's position and my position on this matter will not be supported. However, I do commend one of the more sensible suggestions put forward by Mr Connolly, that is, that the new Assembly should consider the medicinal use of cannabis in a committee process. Mr Moore has already indicated to the Assembly that he would support that process, and I certainly would too. I do not believe that I will be speaking again on this particular matter. It really has been the most extraordinary debate. I hope that, at the conclusion of this debate, we have all thought through the issues and will not be placed in such circumstances again.
Amendment (Mr Moore's) negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .