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 at whether there should be a trial to provide registered heroin addicts with heroin in a controlled environment.
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 Labour – – an excuse to do nothing. A Yes vote would have still been met with enough resistance on the four 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 a long and terms of imprisonment then that there is nothing at the states and territories can do about it. In particular it makes of the running of a heroin trial impossible. At best, a Yes a 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.
In short, the referendum 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 a voting against the referendum.
Those who favoured a referendum posed the question: What are you scared of? If it the people vote against a heroin trial then that should be the end of the matter, they argued.
But politician-initiated referendum is a less than satisfactory way of achieving good governance. Elected politicians have it within that 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 of 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 of itself enact a detailed law to deal with that policy — not some nebulous non-binding proposal.
On a the drug question, Labor’s approach seems a 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.