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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3064 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

controversy themselves, would have been delivered to Canberra people no more than a few weeks out from the election.

Mr Kaine: Two.

MS TUCKER: Mr Kaine says two weeks. That is correct.

Doubtless, expert and interest groups from both sides would have added more to the debate in a situation where it would have been impossible to shift the focus of the debate away from heroin to substance abuse more generally or away from drugs to other policies altogether and where it would have been possible for any candidate to run hard on drug law reform or to run an anti-drugs agenda and avoid every other issue. This referendum would have worked directly against the small "d" democracy which the Chief Minister, amongst others, claims to hold dear.

It is not a question of experts versus the people; it is a question of allowing the electorate to vote on all the issues rather than simply on one. Rather than running to the electorate for direction, the small "d" democrats among us would do well to find the courage to go to the people of Canberra with all their policies-all of them-and be judged on their record. It is as simple as that. The key to this debate is not drugs policy; it is our responsibility as parliamentarians; it is about democracy.

This Assembly is Australia's smallest parliament, and we have possibly the widest range of powers and responsibilities. We are unlikely to have majority government in the territory. Every contribution by every member and every vote by every crossbench member can affect outcomes-in justice, health, services and entitlements; in government accountability and transparency; in the partnerships between government and business, government and community and government and the workforce; and in planning a vision for the future, the kind of Canberra we want. Almost every vote is important.

Furthermore, the ACT electoral system puts the focus on people rather than party. We ask the voters of Canberra to judge us on what we have done individually, and we ask them to vote for us on where we stand across this range of issues into the future. Surely it is cowardly to go out of our way to pick and choose the issues we want to be judged on. Surely we have to be judged on our stance on all issues-such as school funding, domestic violence, business support, a victims of crime scheme and community development-rather than our stance on drug law or health policy alone.

And if we had nothing to say on some issues of real importance, if we argued for some things but then voted for others, would the voters, the media and our opponents not have the right to challenge us on those subjects? Surely we want the electorate to choose wisely, to be able to select the representatives they want. Isn't that what a representative democracy is really about? (Extension of time granted.)

If this referendum had succeeded and the heat and complexity of the heroin trial debate had occupied the bulk of the media's space over the election campaign, then democratic integrity would have been sacrificed to electoral advantage.

The Greens will not be supporting the bill.

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