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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4641 ..

Mr Moore: If you put it off now, we will send you to California in charge of the committee next time.

MR OSBORNE: No. Mr Speaker, if California, which has a gross State product that is higher than the GDP of most developed countries, has had problems in the wake of that referendum, it is a fair bet that the ACT would go under very quickly if a similar proposal got up here. The reality is that we have a very narrow revenue base, and we simply could not afford to have it reduced. I have been considering this Bill, and, like Mr Moore, have found it a very interesting and very hard decision to make. I should add while I am on that, Mr Speaker, that both members of my staff hate the idea.

Mr Moore: But they were kind enough to write your speech.

MR OSBORNE: I am just reading this speech, and it is quite pathetic, Mr Speaker.

This morning, I forwarded some amendments to Mr Humphries. The amendments would prohibit the introduction of any legislative proposal thrown up by CIR that would have the effect of lowering taxes or charges or limiting the ability of the Executive to raise revenue. It would also rule out proposals which are deemed to be frivolous, vexatious or trivial. Even with these amendments, Mr Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely torn about this Bill. There is a superficial attraction to this idea, because it looks as if we are allowing more people to have a say in the democratic process, and what could be wrong with that?

Mr Speaker, from what I know about the international experience of Acts like this one, they are often hijacked by vested-interest groups, and often those with the most money win the argument. I also fear that the populist arguments will win the day. I can honestly see the day, Mr Speaker, when the death penalty will raise its ugly head in a referendum. This is hardly far fetched, as opinion polls in the wake of violent murders often show overwhelming support for the death penalty. I recall my days in the police force after the horrific Anita Cobby murder. If a referendum on the death penalty had been held that year, I think it would have had close to 100 per cent approval.

I must say, too, Mr Speaker, that I find the Government's support for this legislation a little curious, given that last year, or it might have been this year, I presented to this Assembly a petition which had 42,000 signatures on it - do not look dumbfounded there, Mr Humphries - in regard to trading hours. Do you remember? Mr Speaker, this was 42 times the number needed to raise an issue under this Bill and nearly 41/2 times the number of people required to get this proposal into this place under the provisions of this Bill. I cannot help but wonder why, if the will of the people is so important to the Government, it paid such scant attention to that fairly strong expression of their intent on that issue.

In any event, Mr Speaker, this is a tough one. I have decided, having listened to Mr Moore, that I will be voting against this Bill tonight. However, it is a vote that is not a strong vote, because I am very evenly balanced on it, and, should I return to the Assembly next time, certainly it is something that I hope is raised very early on, because I am a great believer in referendums - referendums that do count, unlike the referendum Mr Moore attempted to get up a few months ago.

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