D-DAY FOR ASSEMBLY ON HEROIN REFERENDUM

The ACT has a population of about 310,000 and an estimated 3179 heroin
users. While the problem has become worse in the past 3 years, our local
politicians have reached an impasse on how to deal with it.

Today, the Legislative Assembly will decide whether a heroin referendum
should be held in conjunction with the October 20 ACT election. MLAs are as
divided on this question as they are on the broader questions that a
referendum will decide.

In proposing a referendum, the politically vulnerable Liberal Party has
ensured that drug-law reform will be an election issue, and possibly a
diversion to the dismay of the Labor Party.

The two questions on the table are: 1) Do you approve of the running, in
the ACT, of a trial of a supervised injecting room for people dependent on
heroin? and, 2) Do you approve of the conducting of a clinical trial, in
the ACT, for the controlled provision, under medical supervision, of heroin
to people registered as dependent on heroin? Liberal candidates can
advocate for or against each question, according to their personal beliefs.
Labor candidates are bound by party policy, regardless of internal division
on the questions.

Two conservative Independents holding the balance of power are the main
reason why drug-law reform has progressed very little in this term of the
Assembly.

The two Independents Paul Osborne and Dave Rugendyke have said they won't
be bound by the results of a referendum if they were elected to the next
Assembly.

They want a referendum to encourage community debate, and highlight an
issue on which they could happily campaign. If they don't agree with the
outcome, they won't be bound by it. It's a win-win situation.

A Bill to trial an injecting room in Civic was passed in the Assembly in
December 1999. Kate Carnell and Brendan Smyth split with Liberal Party
policy to support the Bill, which was put forward by Independent Health
Minister Michael Moore.

Chief Minister Gary Humphries, who was attorney-general at the time, took a
different view, saying he would never split with party policy, even though
he supported the trial.

Six months later, Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke opposed the Budget, and did a
deal with the Carnell government to defer the injecting-room trial until
after the election.

After announcing his intention to oppose the Budget because of
injecting-room funding, Mr Rugendyke reported overwhelming community
support for his stand.

He now says the people must have their say before a major party has a
mandate to legalise drugs. But it would have to be an overwhelming "yes"
vote for him to even consider changing his position.

Will a referendum really test community views? Mr Humphries says it will,
and Canberrans are well-educated enough on drug-related issues to determine
the future of drug-law reform in the territory.

Dr Gabriele Bammer, who developed the protocols for a heroin trial, says
referendums almost never return a "yes" vote unless there is uniform
support across all parties.

Others recognise a potential for scare tactics and over-politicisation of
the debate.

Mr Moore and cross-bencher Trevor Kaine will have the deciding votes when
the Assembly debates referendum legislation today.

For a referendum to succeed, it needs one more vote.

Mr Moore, who will not contest the October election, prides himself on
being a long-time advocate of drug-law reform. In Cabinet two weeks ago, he
won some concessions on the wording of the referendum questions, and
convinced his colleagues to remove a third question on naltrexone or
treatment options.

Mr Moore has publicly expressed reluctance to support a referendum. In
refusing to disclose his position before today's debate, he is putting
pressure on Mr Kaine, who will have to vote first. Mr Kaine, a former
Liberal, is open-minded on the referendum but suspicious of political
motives behind it. He's also concerned that, weeks out from the election,
there is no sign of the "yes" and "no" cases.

Labor and Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker will oppose the referendum legislation.

There is some weight in the view that a referendum on drugs is a
politically handy diversion for the Liberal Party, which is entering this
election as the underdog.

The referendum legislation would give MLAs who sign up for the "yes" or
"no" case control over how each case is prepared. So those in support of a
heroin trial would be responsible for the "yes" case. A 2000-word summary
of each case would be delivered to ACT households at least two weeks before
the election.

Labor is taking a fairly reserved drug policy to the election. The policy
is to support a national heroin trial, and base a decision on whether to
have an injecting room on the results of the NSW trial.

The six Labor MLAs in the Assembly are bound by that policy, regardless of
their individual views. If the referendum gets up today, they will have to
sign up to a case, presumably the "yes" case, or not be involved at all.

Labor Leader Jon Stanhope says Caucus had not considered whether it would
participate, and was still of the view that common sense would prevail and
the referendum would not get up. The Liberal Party, going to the election
without a policy on these divisive questions, is in a much better position
to exploit community division.

Liberal Speaker Greg Cornwell hoped a referendum would see a "silent
majority" to squash the small and noisy "pro-drug lobby" once and for all.

For Mr Cornwell, who is seeking re-election after keeping a low profile for
the past 3 years, a referendum will be a good profile-raising exercise.

And, as one letter writer said, "How convenient to have the same party
publicly voting for and against its own referendum. Can't miss many votes
that way, can they?"

Mr Humphries will advocate the "yes" case for the heroin trial, and is
undecided on the injecting room question. Mr Smyth and Liberal MLA Jacqui
Burke will advocate the "yes" case for both. (Mrs Burke says her views have
changed in the past year.)

Bill Stefaniak and Harold Hird will join Mr Cornwell in advocating the "no"
case. Despite this mix of views, Mr Humphries has made a public commitment
that Liberal MLAs would be bound by a referendum outcome.

According to Assisting Drug Dependents Inc, there are 3179 people in the
ACT registered with its needle-exchange program. This is indicative only:
some people are registered more than once, and others collect needles on
behalf of a group of drug users.

In 2000-01, 700,000 needles were distributed in the ACT double the amount
distributed six years ago.

The referendum proposal stems partly from dissatisfaction with the existing
drugs policy, under which prevention and treatment remains under-funded,
despite the Health Minister's enthusiasm for more innovative proposals.

Mr Humphries now says he doesn't believe he could offer solutions to crime
without taking significant steps towards drug-law reform. He recognised the
political deadlock, and says drug-law reform would not proceed in the next
Assembly without a referendum.

But is a referendum a significant step?

Many of its supporters view it as a way of quashing drug-law reform.

Mr Humphries might just be having it both ways.