Page 4050 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: Come off it, Gary! Did you?
MR HUMPHRIES: Why was he not quoted, Mr Moore? He is Australia's leading expert on citizen-initiated referenda. You do not mention him in the course of the document. That is a large omission, do you not think? I think that it is a rather large omission. As I have said, 22 of the 24 submissions before the Assembly expressly supported citizens-initiated referenda. What is the point of an inquiry when we chose to ignore all the submissions? I have better things to do with six weeks of my time than to be sitting down and wasting it at an inquiry, when the outcome had already been determined.
Most of the submissions did recommend some improvements or some tinkering with the concept; but I believe that every one of those 22 submissions wanted to see CIR in place. I believe that every one of those 22 submissions realised that there was a window of opportunity available, so we thought, for the 1994 ACT Assembly.
Members interjected.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the house will come to order.
MR HUMPHRIES: People realise that that was the case, and they want to see this pass. They have been sorely disappointed. The theme of this report is very clear. The theme is that people in this Territory are too ignorant, too gullible or too venal to be trusted with important decisions about their future and about the life of the Territory. On the other hand, politicians are wise, fair, eternally disinterested and not open to the blandishments of minority organisations. Madam Speaker, let me quote a few small phrases from the report to illustrate that point:
... voters may not have the expertise to come to grips with all the complexities of an issue, and therefore may not be in a position to make an informed judgment.
Goodness me, how can they decide at election time what they are going to do when they go to the ballot box?
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Mr Humphries is misrepresenting what is in the report. He is reading it as though it is a recommendation in the report; he is reading from a section of the report headed "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CIR", rather than a conclusion of the committee.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will read from another part which is not part of the disadvantages. Here is another part, Mr Moore, which is not from the same section of the report:
On the back of ... public outrage over a crime, a concerted move by a powerful special interest group could lead to the introduction of radical laws ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .