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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3011 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

responsibility of making the decisions themselves on these issues. They want a referendum without any commitment to accepting the outcome. And they want a referendum despite the fact that the Prime Minister, a Liberal Prime Minister, has said that there will be no heroin trial and no shooting gallery in Canberra. They will hope, therefore, to be able to shelter behind the Prime Minister's opposition if they get a yes vote to the referendum question. So they have got it both ways. If they get a no vote they will reckon that is great thing; if they get a yes vote they will hide behind the Prime Minister's position.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the Liberals want a referendum because it gets them off a hook. It gets them off the hook of having no policy on this very issue which they now claim is the major issue coming up in eight weeks time or less at the election.

Mr Speaker, I have referred to the government as being morally bankrupt, and I think their actions demonstrate that they are; but I think other members of this place need to look at themselves also. For example, Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke really need, before they vote on this issue, to confront the morality of supporting a referendum although refusing to accept the outcome. Where is the morality in that? I know Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke to be highly moral people, but I cannot reconcile their supporting the referendum on the one hand and saying on the other that if they do not like the outcome they will not support it. I think they need to look carefully to see whether they are not being rather contradictory there.

Of course, I think Mr Moore, being a reasonable person, will decide whether he will support the ploy of a referendum as an acceptable alternative to the government of which he is a part making effective policy decisions and taking effective action. I think there is a bit of a moral dilemma there for Mr Moore, and I am sure he will act accordingly.

Mr Speaker, the government, of course, would not wish to be influenced by any other referendum or plebiscite that might already have been taken on the issue. For example, a Newspoll survey conducted only a couple of weeks ago has found that 45 per cent of people were in favour of heroin trials and 47 per cent against. The population is fairly evenly divided on the issue.

If, after spending $200,000-plus to conduct a referendum, the ACT population arrives at the same outcome, split fairly evenly down the middle, I have to ask, "What would a Liberal government do?" The answer, Mr Speaker, presumably, is nothing. That would be exactly the desired outcome from a referendum for them.

Mr Speaker, there is much opposition to the conducting of a referendum. The Australian Federal Police oppose it, the Salvation Army opposes it, the Australian Medical Association opposes it. These are people who are pretty close to the front line when it comes to dealing with drugs issues. There is no doubt that many of our citizens oppose it. I can only say that based on the evidence that has been brought to my attention in recent days. So why persist? What is the driving force behind this government initiative? The government has not explained why it thinks it necessary or desirable to conduct a referendum. I think they do need to justify it, because I do not believe there are any grounds that could justify it.

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