Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3253 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I also have expressed some concern, as was raised today by Mr Rugendyke, about the actual status of this strategy. I raise that, Mr Speaker - and I know this is a point of interest to you - in light of the fact that three members of the Liberal Party do not support aspects of the drug strategy. Mr Hird, Mr Stefaniak and you, Mr Speaker, I understand, have advocated quite vocally against certain parts of the strategy.

That does raise concerns about whether or not a government, in relation to which a conscience vote has been given, can stand up and wave a document around, and say, "This is the Government's strategy". It is simply not possible, in any parliament professing to espouse the notions of responsible government, for a government to prepare a document which is not supported by its party room; which cannot be supported by the party room if a conscience vote has been given. When an issue has attracted or actually has attaching to it a conscience vote, it is simply not possible - it is inconceivable to me - for a government to stand up with a piece of paper and say, "This is the Government's policy, but we have a conscience vote on it". You cannot do it. Well, you have done it but it is a nonsense.

It is illegal and jurisdictional and political nonsense to say, "This here is our policy". It is an absolute opinion, it is an absolute belief that you cannot hold something up as government policy, and at the same time say, "This is the Government's policy, but all members of the party have a conscience vote on it". You cannot do it. Mrs Carnell seems to think you can and actually is quite bemused at the fact that I think that there is some sort of logical inconsistency in saying that you can actually distribute a document as the Government's policy while at the same time say, "But all of my members have a conscience vote on this, and one of my ministers - one of the members of my Cabinet indeed - not only is advocating against it but intends to vote against it". The notions of Cabinet responsibility and collective responsibility simply do not permit a member of Cabinet to vote against the government. The notions of collective responsibility, as expressed in House of Representatives Practice and every other document ever written on this, simply do not allow it. It has quite significant implications. (Further extension of time granted)

That is one aspect which Mr Rugendyke has also expressed concern about. I share Mr Rugendyke's concern in relation to that. We have here a document that is not supported by half of the Liberal party room. Had Mrs Carnell not swapped Mr Moore for Mr Kaine, it would not be supported by a majority of the Liberal party room. It is only that Mr Moore now occupies that seat within the Government that there is the majority. It is now four-three, but only because Mrs Carnell chose to exchange Mr Kaine for Mr Moore within the Liberal party room and Mr Moore now actually drives the Government's drug policy. As we all know, the Belconnen branch of the Liberal Party, Mr Hird's and Mr Stefaniak's branch, actually does have a motion for the Liberal Party's annual conference to require that the Liberals do certain things in relation to drugs - things I do not agree with, admittedly. But these are facts the community has a right to be aware of.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .