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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3282 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

community, and enrolled residents do not have to be members of this Assembly to have a say.

Whatever happens in this community, the rules by which we live should not be decided by a few politicians and should not be imposed by narrow interest groups via the political party in power at the time. This bill takes away from just a mark on the ballot paper and gives opportunities to influence governments and oppositions in what policies the parties present in parliament. It takes the process closer to the people and makes our system more democratic.

This bill increases involvement in a system that can often disillusion people, particularly our young people. It therefore is a way of engaging more people in our community in a practical and valuable way. Our young people are given an opportunity to have a say without being aligned to any party, and they can put their views to the parliament as a bill to be considered.

Many people would raise many arguments on this issue, but I would like to refer to page 2564 of Hansard of 25 August 1994, to a speech made by Mrs Carnell at that time. She said:

The argument is sometimes run that noisy minorities will gain too much influence; that giving people the power to initiate their own laws will mean that fringe groups can get up lunatic proposals. The fact is that this bill has 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.

That has been mentioned in this place today. Mrs Carnell went on to say:

Experience also shows that the opposite is true. For example, notwithstanding the great unpopularity of the small Communist Party in 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.

The cost of running a referendum is sometimes cited as the reason for denying the community the opportunity to initiate laws and vote on them. To the extent that there is some expense, it will be reduced by ensuring that most referenda are held at the same time as general elections. Another factor that would reduce cost, and in some cases eliminate it altogether, is that all referendum proposals will first be tabled in the Assembly and the Assembly can pass the law itself if it wants to, in which case no referendum will need to be held.

This brings me back to the referendum. This would have been an excellent way of empowering the Canberra community to be involved and have a say in the drug debate. Do members in this place want to just keep all the power, or do they want to share the

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