Page 2564 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, most of the opposition to direct democracy comes from career politicians or from those who have influence in established party structures. This is understandable, but it is not excusable. Essentially, the rejection of direct democracy amounts to thinly disguised self-interest. When analysed, most arguments against the concept of allowing the community to initiate its own laws and vote on them are generally arguments against democracy itself. Let us look at the main ones.
Mr Lamont: Tell Alexander Beetle that.
MRS CARNELL: Maybe you should talk to your leader on Hilmer, on corporatising and privatising, Mr Lamont. The argument is sometimes run that noisy minorities will gain too much influence; giving people the power to initiate their own laws will mean that fringe groups can get up lunatic proposals. The fact is that this Bill has the opposite effect. At present it is much easier for a noisy and well-organised minority to get its way by persuading a few key politicians, as we know, than it would be to persuade a majority of all voters. That is why lobby groups flourish under the current system. Direct legislation is a very effective way of taking controversial issues out of the hands of extremists, pressure groups and power elites.
An alternative argument is also put, but this one asserts that minorities will suffer at the hands of the majority. Experience also shows that the opposite is true. For example, notwithstanding the great unpopularity of the small Communist Party in Australia in 1951, a referendum to ban it was lost. In Queensland the Government introduced daylight saving against the wishes of a minority living in rural areas, but when the question was put to a referendum most Queenslanders chose to respect the special needs of people in the country and voted against daylight saving.
The cost of running a referendum is sometimes cited as the reason for denying the community the opportunity to initiate laws and vote on them. To the extent that there is some expense, it will be reduced by ensuring that most referenda are held at the same time as general elections. Another factor that will reduce cost, and in some cases eliminate it altogether, is that all referendum proposals will first be tabled in the Assembly and the Assembly can pass the law itself if it wants to, in which case no referendum will need to be held.
You hear of voter apathy as a reason for not allowing direct democracy. "Nobody knows and nobody cares" is what you hear; but, to a large extent, voter apathy is a product of the present political system. People are not inherently apathetic; but, if they feel excluded from the action and powerless to do anything about it, then why bother? They might seem ill-informed or prejudiced or naive; but they would not be if they were part of the action, if they had real power.
Another argument cited is lack of understanding on the part of the punters. It is argued that ordinary people are not capable of understanding the complexities of issues and legislative proposals, but I say that the level of political understanding in the electorate depends much more on interest than on ability. Hence, although opponents of direct
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .