Page 3439 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Mr Speaker, I find it very hard indeed to believe that honesty, integrity and representative government examples are not relevant to this debate. If that was the case, we could never talk about these things. One would only have to speak in flowery language; we could never talk about what actually happens in parliament. It was unfortunate that Rosemary Follett described the voters' veto as an extreme right wing principle.
I think some people may describe the Labor Party as extreme right wing, if you look at socialism being right wing - which it is. But it is important to note, and I have made the point in this house before, that the citizens' referendum was a major plank - not just a plank, but a major objective - of the Labor Party from its inception in the 1890s through to 1963, when at the instigation of Don Dunstan it was removed from the Labor Party policy.
Indeed there will be an opportunity for the Labor Party in this house to support the principle of people having a say by a binding referendum - voters' veto. I noted that Robyn Nolan a moment ago was shaking her head, and one wonders why. It is a pity she did not shake her head after voting to remove fluoride from the water in Canberra, and - - -
Mrs Nolan: Dennis, you are on a committee. You should not be talking about it.
MR STEVENSON: Well, once again, I am talking about basic principles. I am not talking about whether it is a good idea or not; I am talking about principles. The principle is that the people should be heard. So, as far as the motion standing in the name of the Labor Party is concerned, it has some wonderful concepts that I have always supported, and that I will go on supporting. However, I wonder whether it bears some similarity to a cannibal who is now promoting vegetarianism. While I fully support the ideal, I can assure you I would not be standing near the pot at dinnertime.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.49): I will just make some brief comments. I think it is clear to all in the house that we support the principles of this motion, but we do not support the machinery proposed - not all of it - and certainly it is prudent for Mr Humphries to move the motion, which I support, that this motion by the Leader of the Opposition be referred to the Administration and Procedures Committee for consideration.
There are numerous reasons why that should be so, not the least of them being a number of important issues raised by Ms Follett's motion. Briefly, there are machinery problems, as I see them, with respect to that part of the motion that calls for the committee to hold all hearings in public. We have seen a retreat from that high-minded idea in New South Wales recently when, clearly, the proceedings of the Independent Commission against Corruption did tend to bring to light a number of allegations which were not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .