Page 3967 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.44): Mr Stevenson, during his speech, commented about how democracy works. This, he said - referring to his proposal - is how democracy works.
Mr Stevenson: Fair go!
MR WOOD: They are the words you used. This gives me difficulty. If we look at the ACT, Mr Stevenson did not and still does not want the ACT to be a democratic city-state. He ran two election campaigns saying, "Let us not have it. Abolish self-government". He argued vehemently that we should not have this Assembly. He has stood up on no small number of occasions in this Assembly and said that we do not need to be here, and he made some brief reference to that again today.
Mr Stevenson from time to time takes lines that are inconsistent, and we had an example last week in comments he made about censorship. Indeed, Mr Stevenson follows this strange path in the Assembly, as in the community. In the first instance, he uses the processes of the Assembly - for example, in the anti-pornography campaign and the Bills he brings up to abolish X-rated videos - as he is entitled to, to carry his campaigns. At the same time, he says that we should not have this Assembly. This seems to me to be a rather strange mixture. In some ways, it seems to be some sort of fifth column at work, although Mr Stevenson is very open in what he does, or in much of what he does.
How does democracy work? The fact is that democracy works in a great variety of ways. I am a part of the democracy in this Assembly as I am an elected representative of the people of Canberra. Another aspect of our democracy is the openness of the system here. I think democracy becomes a difficult concept when matters are closed. Mr Stevenson has the view that we should go out to the community and conduct polls, and a great deal has been made of that in this Assembly. I have the view that polling is a dangerous path to follow in many circumstances. That is not to say that I have any opposition at all to consulting the community and finding out what the community wants; but to govern by polls, I think, is an undesirable way to go.
As a representative, I would reserve the right not to accept an overwhelming community view where my judgment says otherwise. There are outstanding cases in history where parliaments or assemblies of some sort or other should have rejected what seemed to be an overwhelming community view. I reserve the right not to accept what appears to be the popular opinion of the time.
At the same time, as we demonstrate in this Assembly, we maintain the closest links with the community. I spend much of my time talking to groups in my room upstairs, going to groups in the community, listening to groups, assessing what people say. That does not mean that on every occasion I can say yes to people. It is as simple as that. We cannot say yes on every occasion. I recall the last two American elections. In the election before this recent one, President Bush said, "Read my lips. No more taxes". That was an impossible promise to give. He could not keep that commitment, and he lost a lot of reputation as a result. If I went to the public and did a poll on taxes, I can tell you fairly reliably, I would think, what the answer would be.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .