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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4639 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That is not what Ms Follett was saying. What Ms Follett was saying was that they actually find ways to legitimise the issues that they are raising; that, because we have a referendum on it, it is a legitimate way to deal with these issues. Certainly, the anti-gay forces' involvement in one of the referendums in the United States in the last year was appalling. They continued to run the notion of associating gay people with paedophilia. The two are entirely different issues; yet they were able to run that and get credibility. They pick up that credibility because there is a referendum; because they can get enough people to establish a referendum, the issue is legitimised. I think that is something that Mr Humphries underestimates. Once again, it is minority groups in the community that are most vulnerable under community-initiated referendums.

In all his answers, Mr Humphries also put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that we have compulsory voting. I think that does answer a couple of the criticisms raised, but not all of them. There were some other arguments put up. I raised the issue of the media. Mr Humphries answered that by saying:

It is an argument that the Government does not accept. The people of Canberra are more than capable of arriving at intelligent views on issues without being unduly influenced by the media.

I have to say, Mr Humphries, that my experience over the last little while has only served to strengthen my view about the role of the media, rather than the alternative. The role of the media, combined with the role of those who have the most money and are able to influence people and pay for television advertisements, is a critical issue. I think we have to deal with it. It is true that we in Canberra are more fortunate than people in most other places. Certainly, those of us who watched the role played by the Daily Telegraph in influencing the Prime Minister about the heroin trial would have been appalled - not necessarily because of the newspaper's view and stance, but because of the bias it used and the misinformation it put out in order to get its view across.

I contrast that with the Canberra Times, which editorialises against me on euthanasia issues all the time, but still presents a fair range of views and seeks to present things accurately. I would be happy to provide members with copies of 15 or so pages of incredible bias presented by the Daily Telegraph. It is there; it is available. We are not necessarily always going to have a media system that works in the way the Canberra Times does. It takes only a change of editor for us to get the sort of approach that comes from the Daily Telegraph. Who knows; Mr Murdoch may buy out the Canberra Times, and it would not be long before we saw a change of approach. I have mentioned the issue of spending, I think.

Mr Humphries went on to say:

This Bill is not intended to radically alter the way in which we are governed -

but, Mr Speaker, that is exactly what it does; it alters the way in which we are governed in a very substantial way -

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