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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3007 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Does anyone consider that Australia's world-leading needle exchange program would have been voted in by a referendum which asked, "Do you approve the running in the ACT of a trial needle exchange program for drug addicts?" Just imagine a referendum 15 to 20 years ago, or within the appropriate time frame, that asked, "Do you approve the running in the ACT of a trial needle exchange program for drug addicts?" I guarantee that in the climate of the day the answer would have been no, and governments would have committed to not conducting a needle exchange program in the ACT, with the consequences of that.

Yet the needle exchange program has proved an outstanding success in reducing the number of AIDS cases in Australia, in protecting people from infections such as HIV and hepatitis C, and in protecting, in turn, the wider community. The health care costs saved by the prevention of infection through the needle exchange program would be in excess of 20 times the cost of the program. This program has been studied and regarded as a best practice model by health professionals the world over.

Also, the problem arises that the very people who have developed the arguments on these policies, which will be implemented or not according to the vote on the referendum questions, may very well not be in the next Assembly. The people who will then be elected members for the ACT, charged with promoting the policies they put forward successfully in their campaigns, may have presented the arguments very differently. Who is to say that new members of this place will feel bound by the results of this referendum whatever way it goes?

I do have a comment on the approach adopted for the referendum by the Liberal Party in this regard; the notion that Liberal Party candidates have a conscience vote on the issue up until 20 October and, subject to the results, they do not have a conscience vote on the issue on 21 October. This is indeed a new spin on the granting of a conscience position for members of a political party: "Look, go out there and argue the case on the referendum, exercise your conscience, but on 21 October your conscience is no longer relevant. You are bound to implement the decision which the leader decides on that day."

I think this is an absurd motion. For anybody, for any commentator, to accept that members of the Liberal Party are going to exercise their conscience until 20 October, and from 21 October when matters come before this place they no longer are going to exercise their conscience-in fact, that they will be prohibited from exercising their conscience after that date-is an absurdity, and the debate in relation to the injecting room bill of the year before last tells us that.

It tells us that in the context of the way the Liberal Party voted on that issue. Of the six Liberals who voted on the injecting room trial bill, two voted ostensibly with the party position, two voted against the party position and two voted against the cabinet position. The party in fact had three sets of positions. The Chief Minister and Mr Smyth voted in accordance with the cabinet position but against the party. They crossed the floor. No, they didn't cross the floor, in fact. You need to analyse this. You need to understand this to put the lie to the nonsense that is being put about; that the Liberals will have no position up to 20 October, but then magically a position will appear on 21 October. You need just to look at the injecting room debate to put this in context. It is an important position in relation to the advocacy of this referendum by the Liberals.

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