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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4638 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That may even be true for the majority. We may even empower the majority. But what we already know from our society and studies in society is that the majority are already empowered. The disempowered that Ms Follett talked about are almost invariably in minority groups. That is where the contestability part comes in. Mr Humphries went on to say that, under our present system, minority groups can wield enormous power if they can sway the opinions of a bare majority of Assembly members, just nine people; that, with a community-initiated referendum, minority groups must gain the approval of a majority of voters - something like 90,000 to 100,000 people - if they are to get their way.

Indeed, I have been on the receiving end of those campaigns. It was quite clear from polling that the legislation on euthanasia that I put up would be supported by the vast majority of people in the ACT - over three-quarters of them, over 75 per cent. Yet a very small, very vocal minority, primarily from the Right to Life Association, wield an enormous amount of power. We know why they wield that enormous amount of power. It is because parties, in particular, are concerned - and I recognise that parties do have a conscience vote on this - about the percentage of the vote that they will swing. If 10 per cent of people are prepared to change their vote on that issue alone, then that is a 10 per cent swing. Anybody in politics is aware that a 10 per cent swing against you is a very significant swing. So, there are issues there where Mr Humphries is right. A very minor group can have a huge influence. So, I concede that there is a point there.

Mr Speaker, at no stage have I suggested, nor would I try to suggest, that this is a very simple debate; that either you have democratic principles with CIR or you do not. There are issues on both sides which make for a very interesting understanding of the best way to make democracy work. That is why I believe that I will remain open-minded on the issue, if we can find ways to protect citizens' rights. That is before I get to protection of parliamentary systems.

Mr Humphries responded:

Ms Follett ... stated that "an examination of the US record shows that groups such as racist anti-immigration forces and religious right anti-gay forces have all profited from referendums" and concluded that "... extreme groups can indeed benefit from referendums and have their causes legitimised".

This is a great concern, and I think this is something that was not well answered by Mr Humphries. His answer was:

Under this Bill, with compulsory voting -

there is no doubt that compulsory voting does make a difference -

there is no way that highly motivated but unrepresentative minority groups can impose their will on the whole community.

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