Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2234 ..

Mr Moore: Are you going to guarantee compulsory voting?

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes. I can more than guarantee it, Mr Speaker. Compulsory voting is entrenched under ACT electoral legislation. It is also not surprising that the New Zealand Government did not feel bound to implement what was only an advisory referendum, given the low turnout. While the self-government Act precludes binding referenda in the ACT, under this Bill and the accompanying entrenching Bill the Assembly would be unlikely to reject a referendum law properly passed by a majority of voters under compulsory voting. The New Zealand referendum approach asks voters to vote on simple propositions, not properly drafted laws, as required under this Bill. Voters in New Zealand did not have access to widely distributed for and against cases. This Bill provides for a structured method of distributing for and against cases to all households. All in all, the failure of the recent New Zealand referendum can be attributed to failings in the New Zealand scheme which are not present in this Bill.

Mr Moore argued that adoption of community-initiated referenda would lead to power being transferred to the media. This patronising view is not only an argument against community-initiated referenda; it is also an argument against holding elections per se. It is an argument that the Government does not accept. The people of Canberra are more than capable of arriving at intelligent views on issues without being unduly influenced by the media. We all accept that the media have a role to play in the responsible dissemination of arguments for and against proposals, but we also accept, as most Canberrans would, that we are allowed to make up our own minds, based on the information which we receive in the media.

Ms Horodny also pointed to the United States experience and argued that big-spending groups can exercise undue influence over referendum outcomes. Again, I point to the fact the ACT has compulsory voting. Ms Horodny also claimed that the Assembly was the only body capable of finetuning and compromising on legislative proposals, implying that ordinary members of the public are incapable of arriving at sensible proposals to put to a referendum. This is an elitist and arrogant view that once again insults the intelligence of Canberra people. Mr Speaker, Ms Horodny argues for more participatory democracy in the ACT but rejects the measure that will give every voter a chance to participate in key decisions in this Territory. This Government does not intend community-initiated referenda to replace all other forms of participative decision-making; rather, the Government sees community-initiated referenda as one more powerful tool to complement the range of mechanisms available in the ACT for input into public policy, as well as a method of enshrining sovereignty in the people, not in executive government.

This Bill is not intended to radically alter the way in which we are governed, but it is intended to bridge the credibility gap between elected representatives and the people they represent by giving every citizen the right, in certain circumstances, to initiate and vote on laws of their choosing. This Bill is not aimed at usurping the powers and responsibilities of elected representatives, but it is aimed at providing direct power to the people to cover those times when elected representatives do not fulfil their role in representing the wishes of the majority.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .