Page 1034 - Week 06 - Thursday, 27 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not be implemented against the wishes of the ACT community. I have heard Mr Kaine today say, in a number of statements all directed towards the same thing, that this is clearly the will of the people, it is clearly the will of the community, and so on. We have no real indication that it is the will of the community.
The report that we have in front of us questions the sorts of polls that have been taken. There is only one real poll that is possible and that also forms part of the Rally policy. My colleague Mr Collaery has pointed out that in a judgment where there is a vote of three to two, as this one was, the issue is divisive.
Under those circumstances it should be resolved by referendum, and I would argue that the only way to handle this situation now is for this Assembly to decide to run with a referendum on this particular issue. To suggest that we know very well the will of the people is ludicrous. We do not. The vast majority of the people, I imagine, do not have strong feelings one way or the other, but they do have feelings and they do have indications.
If people are asked a series of technical questions in a poll, of course they can be led towards an answer. There was a graphic demonstration of that in one of the Yes, Minister programs. People can easily be led into believing that something is good for them. It can be done along the lines of asking, "Are you interested in employment in the ACT?". Of course I am interested in employment. "Do you realise that the building industry is going downhill?". Of course it is going downhill. "Do you accept that therefore we need more development in order to employ people?" Yes, I do. "Do you support the building of a major construction in section 19?" Yes, I do. "Because it is the only employment opportunity available at the moment should we follow it?". Yes, it is only appropriate.
If you take that line of questioning, of course people are going to respond "yes" when they have not got all the facts at their fingertips. If of course you use your wording in an entirely different way and say, "Are you aware that there are major social problems associated with gambling?", the answer will be, "Yes, I am". If you lead through a series of questions along those lines, then equally you are going to come up with forcing people into an answer "no".
A fair and equitable way to approach this is of course to run a referendum. Mr Whalan in his speech this morning talked about increased employment and the push for employment opportunities. That is tied in with development and tied in with the building industry in the initial instance and then later employment for young people, as he said. Using this sort of argument to lure people to support this type of project is rather reprehensible.
Mr Collaery: Shame; disgraceful!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .