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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4652 ..

Mr Whitecross: Not according to the Prime Minister.

MR HUMPHRIES: Stop talking over me, Mr Whitecross. It is very rude. Mr Speaker, if we go to that election, we will be dealing with the representative democracy having to address another black-and-white question - the 10-point plan. That is what people are going to vote on. It is going to be a 10-point-plan type of thing - a "do you support it or don't you?" kind of election.

Mr Whitecross: It is a complete misrepresentation. They will be voting on whether they want Mr Howard to be Prime Minister - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Whitecross, you have already spoken at length on this matter. Stop interjecting.

MR HUMPHRIES: And you were heard in silence, by the way.

Mr Whitecross: I was provoked, Mr Speaker; but I will try to be quiet.

MR SPEAKER: Let us get on with this.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I do not mind taking an interjection, as long as I can talk to it when it is put forward.

So, if we go to an election on Wik, where is the chance there for minority interests to be protected, if the government of the day is returned on the basis of its Wik policies? When we have the double dissolution and when we have the joint sitting of parliament, where the Wik legislation is voted through that chamber, if you people believe that that extinguishes all sorts of important minority rights, where does that end up with the representative democracy model?

Ms McRae: It will be a High Court challenge; that is where it will end.

MR HUMPHRIES: The High Court is going to save the day, is it, Ms McRae?

Ms McRae: They sure are, if that is pushed through.

MR HUMPHRIES: I think your hopes on that score are going to be dashed.

So, where do minority interests end up in representative democracy? They have the same problem as is suggested here.

Mr Speaker, I will finish my remarks by saying this: All of the criticisms of CIR revolve around one single premise, and that premise is fundamentally that people out in the electorate can be cajoled, persuaded, bribed or whatever, to make mistakes; that people will be hoodwinked; that people will be fooled; that, in the plethora of issues and arguments, people will not be able to make a decision about issues put before them in the form of a referendum.

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