Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2315 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

to restrict the Assembly from amending a law passed as a result of the process set out in this Bill for a period of 12 months, unless either a two-thirds majority of the Assembly or a majority of electors at a referendum approves a change. Mr Speaker, this Bill is not revolutionary. It takes a very careful approach, to ensure that proposals will be well thought through and will result in good law. It will complement the role of the Assembly.

Before a proposal can be registered it will have to be cleared by the Electoral Commissioner, to make sure that it is within the power of the Legislative Assembly, and cannot interfere with the budget by proposing or prohibiting expenditure of specific amounts of public money for particular purposes. The threshold of 5 per cent of electors would be quite difficult to achieve and is right at the top of the range in the light of international experience. This high threshold will serve to defeat frivolous or crackpot proposals, without being too high to stymie voter-initiated referendums altogether.

Another safeguard in the process is the high level of support needed for a proposed law. In most other jurisdictions a referendum is passed if it is supported by the majority of those who decide to vote at a voluntary poll. By contrast, this Bill requires support of the majority under compulsory voting, which those opposite profess to support. Another check built into the system is that, once a proposed law has been tabled in the Assembly, the Chief Minister does an estimate of what it is likely to cost or save. The Auditor-General then provides an independent assessment of that estimate. The reason for this requirement is that if a proposal is to be enshrined in law it is necessary for the community to have reliable information on how much the proposal would cost to implement or the savings that might be made, just as the Assembly does when deciding on legislative proposals in this place. It is appropriate for the estimate of the costs or savings to be done at the time the proposed law has been prepared, because it is the legislation, not the proposal, that governs what is and what is not done.

Mr Speaker, most of the opposition to direct democracy comes from politicians or from those who have influence in established party structures. 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. The argument is sometimes run that noisy minorities will gain too much influence; that giving people the power to initiate laws will mean that fringe groups can get up lunatic proposals. The fact is that this Bill will have 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 of 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.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .