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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3008 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

In relation to the injecting room trial bill, and I will go through it in detail, the then Chief Minister and Mr Smyth supported the cabinet position but voted against the party position. Two other members of cabinet, the now Chief Minister and the now Attorney-General, voted against the cabinet position. They ratted on a cabinet position in support of the party position. Two other members of the party, the Speaker and Mr Hird, voted against the cabinet position and in support, I think, of the party room position and in support of the party position. That is what happened last time.

Now those opposite go out there pretending that that will not happen next time. They are out there pretending that they will not fracture all over the place. They are out there pretending that on this issue, if it comes before the place after the next election, they will vote as one in accordance with the referendum results. That is a position that simply should not be believed. It is not believable.

In acknowledging that it is not believable, you come to the crux of this matter. Why are we having this referendum? What is the real motive behind this flawed initiative? Of course, when you analyse the government's position on it, the real motives become clear.

This is a complex and controversial matter of public policy. It is a matter of public policy that successive governments and governments everywhere find extremely difficult, to the point of being intractable. It is hard. It does require courage, it does require leadership, and it does require a breadth of vision; but the Liberal Party do not have it. They do not have a policy on these issues, as we saw in the debate last time around when the government introduced its own bill.

The party fractured all over the place. It went everywhere. It is bereft of a policy on the issues. It needs a distraction to distract attention from its fiascos and mismanagement of the last three years, and the electoral position it currently finds itself in, and it has scrabbled around looking for that distraction. It has looked for a stunt, and it thinks this is a stunt. That is how cynical this is. This is a shameful exercise. The Liberal Party says, "Let's have a referendum on a difficulty public health policy. Let's see if we can distract attention."

To some extent I think this is almost the final throw of the dice in relation to scapegoating sections of the Australian community. Over the last century or two Australian politicians have found it convenient from time to time to scapegoat certain identifiable sections or portions of the community. One of the most disgraceful aspects of political life is the scapegoating of minorities. We have done it in relation to Aboriginals, we have done it in relation to Asians, we have done it in relation to a succession of migrants, and we have done it in relation to people who have been unable to find work. At different times we have done it in relation to unmarried mothers. But it is now simply unacceptable to scapegoat people on the basis of race or on the basis of sexuality. So the Liberal Party is scrabbling around, saying, "Who can we target? Who is there left to scapegoat?" And who is there left to scapegoat? Drug addicts. Drug addicts are still a fair target by some politicians. That is why this bill is doubly shameful.

The government is reduced to referendums on difficult social policy issues in order to disguise the level of its electoral discomfort and its electoral problems. It is prepared to abrogate all leadership, all responsibility. To the extent that this is an exercise in scapegoating certain people within the community, it is also disgraceful. It is shameful

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