Page 4423 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.21): I think it is important that I respond to a couple of comments made by the Chief Minister. The Liberal Party also supports the recommendations of the committee that looked at citizens-initiated referendums, to the extent that the Liberal Party has always been very willing to take on board any criticisms or any input in respect of this very important issue. The Liberal Party has stated time and time again that we are more than willing to adopt the amendments that have been put forward by the Community Initiated Referendums Committee.
The Chief Minister said that under our Bill the Assembly could not change a decision made under CIR for a period of 12 months after legislation had been passed. That is only an advisory part of our legislation, which was always put together that way. I am sure that any legal person who looked at our legislation would see that to be the case. But because it is advisory we are not wedded to it at all. We believe - and I hope that everybody in the community believes - that, if more than 50 per cent of the community support a particular community referendum and the Assembly passes legislation accordingly, then it would be fairly inappropriate for that same Assembly to change that legislation or to get rid of that legislation in a period of 12 months. It is just an advisory provision. It just says, "We do not think that is a terribly appropriate approach". We cannot direct the Assembly to do anything particularly; what it does is up to the Assembly. Legislation cannot direct the Assembly. That is quite right. That is the reason this provision was put together in an advisory form in our legislation.
Apart from that, there are very few other problems with the legislation as it stands, as determined by the committee. Again I state that the Liberal Party is more than willing to take on board any amendments in the general direction that we have taken with this Bill. The committee does not seem to have a particular problem with the direction that we have taken with this Bill. There have not been any particular problems with the levels of signatures that we have required. It is certainly open to debate, but there have not been any particular problems with that. The amendments to bring the Bill into line with the referendum legislation passed by this Assembly are already drafted. We could go ahead and do that right now without a problem. Quite seriously, I do not see why this Assembly is unwilling to put in place legislation that would allow the community, via a referendum, to have a say.
We were quite willing to pass legislation that would allow the Government to initiate referenda. We are quite willing to look at legislation along the lines of the Hare-Clark entrenchment legislation - all those sorts of issues, all of which we support. Why do we not allow the community also to initiate referenda that will be based upon exactly the same guidelines, the same machinery provisions that our government-initiated referenda are based on? I find it extremely difficult to understand, Madam Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .