Page 4746 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proceed no further with the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill, the Bill proposed by Mr Stevenson. The second was that the Assembly defer consideration of the Community Referendum Bill until the implications on the good governance of the ACT had been fully examined. The third was that the Assembly accept, in principle, the establishment of a select committee with terms of reference as outlined in recommendation 3 to examine and report upon the concept of a citizens-initiated referendum process for the ACT.
The first part of the recommendation made by the committee is based on evidence given by the Electoral Commissioner and supported by all members of the committee, including Mr Humphries. I believe that, as a result, it should be accepted by all members of the Assembly. That was the recommendation on Mr Stevenson's Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill. In the context of this cognate debate, it is not my intention to address Mr Stevenson's Bill any further.
I would like to address the remainder of my remarks to the Community Referendum Bill. As the committee's report notes, there are a number of issues relating to this Bill which the committee believes warrant further consideration. These issues are thresholds, scope, signature collection and verification, timing, preferential voting and cost burden. I agree with the committee that all these issues require further consideration, and I support the proposal that a select committee of the next Assembly be established to consider them in more detail. I would like to suggest that, in light of the outcome on California's proposition 187, more consideration also be given to the likely impact of community-initiated referendums on minority groups. I believe that it is not acceptable in the ACT, or indeed in Australia, that what purports to be a democratic process has the capability of discriminating against people with disabilities, recent migrants, disadvantaged people and people of other minority groups.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I must reiterate my in-principle support for the concept of community-initiated referendums. I welcome the third part of the first recommendation, which calls on a select committee to examine and report on the concept of a community-initiated referendum process in the ACT. This is entirely appropriate in the context of the committee's consideration of citizens-initiated referenda in other jurisdictions and its conclusion that any proposal for community-initiated referendums must itself be tailor-made for the ACT. The legal opinion provided to the committee by the ACT Deputy Law Officer reinforces that view. I also note the ACT Electoral Commissioner's comments regarding review provisions and agree with the committee that review provisions should also be subject to further scrutiny.
Madam Speaker, as I have already said, I welcome the report and support its recommendations. It would perhaps be remiss of me, however, to complete my remarks without considering your own input to the committee's considerations, Madam Speaker - input which was given in your capacity as Speaker. I note that the second recommendation of the report embodies your suggestions which are aimed at substantially increasing public access to the proceedings of the Assembly. The suggestion that standing order 100 be changed to compel a Minister to respond in the Assembly to a petition, I believe, has merit. I agree with you that petitions would then become very powerful tools to be used by the electorate. I was also pleased to consider this issue at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .