Page 3383 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
tampering with the rules and so on stem, not so much from a lust for power, as from a fear of what the other side will do if it comes to power. Under present constitutional arrangements and doctrines, a government that wins an election gains what is virtually dictatorial power for the next three or four years.
In that time there is little or nothing to stop it from using its parliamentary majority to destroy society's most precious institutions or trample on its most cherished values. Those who adhere to A.V. Dicey's theory of parliamentary sovereignty would assert that an act of parliament requiring that all blue-eyed babies be killed would be a valid statute with the force of law.
Direct legislation changes all this. A government that used its temporary majority to enact outrageous statutes would find itself facing referendum ballots on them. As the referendum mechanism enables people to challenge legislation as soon as it is enacted, the government would be unable to impose unwanted laws on the people by enacting them immediately after an election and hoping that other issues would be preoccupying the voters when they returned to the polling booths in three or four years' time.
It could well be said that the voice of the electorate principle is the next correct step in developing Australian democracy. Who would benefit under such a law in the ACT? The people, the members of parliament and democracy. Let me illustrate why. People in Canberra, we are told, were given self-government. I think we would all agree that the voice of the electorate principle would give the people more power to be self-determined. It has often been said that voters are apathetic. I have never believed this. I think it is simply that they are not sure what to do. When you talk to people - when you talk to your neighbours, when you talk to anyone in the street - they are not apathetic about unemployment, they are not apathetic about the cost of living, they are not apathetic about the family and our youth situation, particularly in Canberra. They care, but they are not sure of what to do that will have a useful effect.
Let us look at a couple of benefits around the world. In Italy in 1985 the Italians, at referendum, rejected an indexation measure that would have given many people higher pay in the short term, but at longer-term cost. In New Zealand, in Tauranga, where I visited recently, the people were asked at referendum, "Do you want pesticides continually used in your electorate?". They were also told that if they said no it would cost an extra $NZ900,000. Well, 70 per cent of people said no anyway. And what happened? The pesticides were no longer used and the environment was cleaned up. More importantly, we found that they did not need to pay the $NZ900,000. It was actually cheaper than the method that had been used already. So we need to go into the details when we are told that something will cost more money. Often, it can cost less.
In the ACT we have alarming rates of suicide. We have alarming rates of unemployment, particularly with our youth. We have bankruptcy rates that are unacceptable. We were told recently that sex offences have increased by 137 per cent and violence has increased by some 60 per cent. Who is responsible? Is it just members of this Assembly? Of course not. We are all responsible. Every citizen in the ACT is responsible. But we certainly have a large responsibility because it is we who make the laws.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .