REFERENDUM INEFFECTIVE EITHER WAY

THE ACT Legislative Assembly has decided against holding a referendum on
the question of whether there should be a safe injecting room for heroin
users and whether there should be a trial to provide registered heroin addicts.

The referendum and its subject matter have caused a great deal of heated
debate. Indeed, the debate has been so heated and so bipolar that whatever
the result, few would have changed their view.

The ACT Liberal Party has been accused of floating the referendum as a
smokescreen during the election, which would distract voters from the main
issues of economic management, health, education, and accountability for
public spending. More likely, it disguises the deep divisions within the
party on heroin with a united approach on a no- risk referendum - a no-risk
strategy to be seen to be doing something while having to actually do
nothing. A No vote would have resulted in giving the incoming government -
whether Liberal or Labor - an excuse to do nothing. A Yes vote would have
still been met with enough resistance on the floor of the Assembly and from
the Federal Government to still result in no action.

The constitutional fact is that the Federal Government has power over
imports and heroin is, by and large, an imported product. If the federal
Parliament makes possession of the imported substance a criminal offence
punishable by long terms of imprisonment, then there is nothing the states
and territories can do about it. In particular it makes the running of a
heroin trial impossible. At best, a Yes vote would have been a moral
message which might have been listened to by a federal Labor government or
by a coalition government led by someone other than John Howard. But as a
catalyst for practical measures in the ACT to deal with the heroin problem,
a Yes vote would have meant nothing.

It was a win-win for a divided Liberal Party and a lose-lose for proponents
of drug law reform. For that reason, Independent MLA and Health Minister
Michael Moore, and cross-bencher Trevor Kaine were perfectly consistent in
voting against the referendum.

Those who favoured a referendum posed the question: What are you scared of?
If the people vote No then that should be the end of the matter, they argued.

But a politician-initiated referendum is a less than satisfactory way of
achieving good governance. Elected politicians have it within their power
to deal with policy matters issue by issue. They should do what they are
elected to do. Referendums should be reserved for matters about the nature
and form of government itself, not particular policy decisions. Other than
that, there is perhaps a role for referendums to deal with cases where the
elected politicians have failed. This would mean referendums to defeat
legislation already passed by politicians. If there is a case for a
referendum on a particular policy, surely it would be a binding one that,
if passed, would itself enact a detailed law to deal with that policy - not
some nebulous, non-binding proposal.

On the drug question, Labor's approach seems more courageous. Opposition
Leader Jon Stanhope has come out in favour of a national heroin trial.

Politics should not be merely a business of second-guessing the popular
will on every issue and going with it. Politics also requires leadership on
some issues which initially may be unpopular but which, in the long run,
will help provide solutions to local and national problems.