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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3016 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

We have heard a variety of excuse-type arguments in the course of this debate today-for example, that drugs policy is a health issue and it should not be put before the people. Drug abuse is a health issue. It is also a crime issue. It is also a social issue. It is a moral issue. Above all perhaps, it is a controversial issue. It is an issue on which there is enormous heat in the community. Treatment of heart attacks is not controversial. Supplying heroin to addicts, providing them a place to do so, is highly controversial. For that reason, we need to get the views of the community on those questions.

We have also heard that a referendum will be lost because the community is not sufficiently educated about the issues and will be swayed by cheap rhetoric by conservative elements. It says a lot about the outcome that people who oppose this referendum want in this matter that they are prepared to say, in effect, "I might lose this referendum. Therefore, I will not allow it go forward. I might be defeated, so I am not going to give people the chance to defeat me." How much leadership is shown by that position? How much sense of confidence in the democratic experience does that exhibit?

I think that this community, of all places in Australia, has the sophistication and the understanding to be able to digest these arguments comprehensively and well, and to be able to make an educated decision about them, in the two months between now and 20 October. There has been enormous debate already. We have already had a huge amount of exposure to the arguments, and I believe the community have digested those arguments very well.

Mr Stanhope says that the majority of referendum questions fail. He then points out, almost in answer to that, that we do not usually put social issues forward in a referendum. Indeed, we do not. That is why we need to give that experience, that phenomenon, a chance to work.

Mr Stanhope also says, "Why not allow the New South Wales trial to be completed before we then assess what to do about it?" I would accept that argument if Mr Stanhope were to say to us, "When we see the results of the New South Wales SIP trial, then we will have a referendum and decide whether the community supports proceeding in the ACT with such a phenomenon." But, of course, Mr Stanhope is not saying that. He is saying, "If we believe that the trial in New South Wales has been successful"-however you define that-"then we will do it in the ACT. If it has not been successful in New South Wales, we may or may not do it in the ACT." I am not very clear about that. The leadership we have seen from the Labor Party has been very much wanting.

Mr Stanhope also criticises the idea that Liberal Party members can participate in a conscience debate on this matter prior to 20 October when, as he says, "Then you will have to follow your leader." (Extension of time granted.) I do not know whether he meant to say that, but we are not saying to Liberal Party members that they must follow their leader after 20 October-quite the contrary. We are saying they should follow the electorate-what the community says at the referendum it believes should happen on this matter. That is what we are saying.

Fancy being criticised by a person who begrudges us exercising a conscience vote on this issue when he is not prepared to allow any of the members of his party to exercise a similar conscience vote on this issue. Not one of your members has freedom of choice

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