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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2385 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Of course, that was six months ago. Even as recently as 26 May-six short weeks ago-Mrs Carnell was saying that the budget was an all or nothing matter and the government would not allow a budget containing funding for a supervised injecting place trial to be picked over by the crossbenchers.

That was Mrs Carnell's position of principle six weeks ago; the budget was an all or nothing matter, according to Mrs Carnell, and the government would not allow a budget containing funding for a supervised injecting place to be picked over by the crossbenchers. Mrs Carnell said on that date, those few short weeks ago, "The government will stand or fall on this budget."

How time can change principles, Mr Speaker. How a short six weeks can change a principle so dramatically. Could it be that Mrs Carnell has decided not to run at the next election, but wants to go out as Chief Minister? Is that why she is so willing to allow bipartisan, progressive drug law reform to become just another issue to be kicked around in the hurly-burly of an election campaign? Or could it be that she and Mr Smyth have been done over by the party machines and Mr Humphries and now have to toe the party line? Mr Humphries is ascendant on this issue and we know the extent to which Mr Humphries opposes and has always opposed progressive drug law reform, as well as a progressive approach to so many other things.

I mention Mr Humphries because he was quoted in the Canberra Times of 30 October last year as having voiced his support for a safe injecting room in the past, but said he was not prepared to split with binding Liberal Party policy. Mr Humphries said in October of last year, "In my career I have honoured all the commitments that were imposed on me by the party." Note that he said that he had honoured all of the commitments imposed on him by the party-the party of the never, ever policies and core and non-core promises. There was no mention of commitments to the people who voted him in, to the whole of his electorate or to the wider Canberra community and certainly no honouring of commitments to the underprivileged, the desperate, the drug addicts and their families.

The binding party policy mentioned by Mr Humphries was made at a Liberal Party meeting in October 1999 after it became apparent that a majority of Assembly members would vote in favour of a supervised injecting place trial. It is fortunate that Mrs Carnell and Mr Smyth did not feel as bound as Mr Humphries and that they did vote in the context of a conscience issue at the time. We have noticed that, as of last week, what was a conscience issue last October is suddenly no longer a matter of conscience.

That raises a very intriguing concept for all of us: what has, apparently, always been a matter of conscience within the Liberal Party-namely, drug law reform-is, as of last Saturday or Sunday or whenever the party meeting was held, no longer a matter of conscience. Now that it is no longer a matter of conscience, the rules of cabinet solidarity apply.

I have to say that I do not always agree with Mr Smyth, but I have reread the speech he made on 9 December 1999 and there were many things in that speech with which I agree. Mr Smyth gave quite an eloquent speech in relation to this matter. I agree particularly with the following statement by Mr Smyth of December last year, a short six months ago:

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