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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2391 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

for the vote. So they wanted everybody to have to vote, to have to put their views on the record. They wanted the budget to fall. If the budget did not go through, they knew perfectly well what would have to happen. The government would have to negotiate with the crossbenchers to find a way forward. There were no other choices. It was exactly what Mr Connolly said. There would be a requirement to negotiate, and that's exactly what we did.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is really interesting that Mr Stanhope can hop up and make comments about principle and conscience with regard to the issue of the safe injecting place. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know better than anybody: were members of the Labor Party allowed to have a conscience vote on this issue, or did every single person agree with it? We know perfectly well that that was not the case. The Labor Party chose to take a position which required solidarity from all of their members and which required their members not to have a conscience on this issue right from the beginning.

The approach that the Liberal Party has taken is that of a free vote on drug-related reform issues. We took that view with regard to the heroin trial and a number of other issues that have come before this place. By the way, it is not a conscience issue in the Liberal Party. There are only two of those, and they are euthanasia and abortion. On this issue there is a free vote in the Liberal Party. I have spoken regularly about the fact that I believe free votes should be used more often in areas where there is not a platform issue for the Liberal Party, where it is not part of the Liberal Party platform, where it is not part of Liberal Party principle. I will continue to take that view with regard to issues that fall into that bracket.

There was a free vote and Mr Smyth and I chose to vote in the way that we did. I shouldn't speak for Mr Smyth, but I believe very strongly that issues such as the SIP should be given a chance. The point we made was that we were not sure whether it would work or not. None of us are, and that is the reason for a trial. But where are we now, Mr Deputy Speaker? You know perfectly well. The reality is that we had to come up with a negotiated settlement because the Labor Party blocked supply. The Labor Party, for the first time since 1975, blocked supply. The only choice open to the government at that stage was to negotiate a way forward.

There is one other point that needs to be made today. Mr Stanhope was arguing that he would not support this amendment to the SIP legislation; that he believes it must happen right now; that it shouldn't go to the election; that we must have an SIP up and running very quickly. Now, I accept that argument from Mr Stanhope, but where does that leave this Assembly? It is important that every member think about that. It potentially makes the Assembly unworkable. If those opposite want the SIP up right now, we already know that at least two members of the crossbenches will not wear a budget that has an SIP in it. Therefore, they will oppose that budget. I know that Mr Kaine's view on this is very strong. It is very strong on the SIP as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, what do we end up with? We end up with those opposite relying on us to pass their budget, or, alternatively, an unworkable Assembly. That would mean an election. It would mean taking this place into administration for a period, I think, of 28 or 30 days, and then going to the people, because unless we supported their budget they could not get a budget with the SIP in it through either.

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