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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4640 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

but it is intended to bridge the credibility gap between elected representatives and the people they represent by giving every citizen the right ... to initiate and vote on laws of their choosing.

Representative democracy - the way in which we run now under proportional representation - ensures that people's views are presented proportionally in the Assembly, rather than having the majority view override the minority view. I think that that is a critical issue.

I would like to come to one final issue, Mr Speaker, and that is to do with the second piece of legislation tabled by Mr Humphries - the entrenching Bill. Even if we believed that CIR was an important benefit for the people of the ACT, we certainly would not entrench it at this stage. We did entrench Hare-Clark after a very short time. Why was that? It was because we knew that Hare-Clark had been running for quite some time. We knew that Hare-Clark had been working in Tasmania; we had looked at it and we saw that it was working very well. We adopted Hare-Clark pretty well directly from Tasmania.

This particular proposal - and I would ask Mr Humphries to reconsider this part of the proposal anyway - the proposal to entrench this at this stage, I think, is a foolish move. What it means is that it will be very difficult to make changes. When we start on something that is new and innovative in this way - to be fair to this Liberal Government, they have not just lifted CIR from other places; they have made a huge attempt to ensure that there are checks and balances in place right throughout the legislation - we need to test those checks and balances and perhaps modify them. Eventually, such legislation, if it does get implemented, probably ought to be entrenched. It is about referenda; so, it would be logical that you put the referenda in place. But, if you are going to entrench such legislation, then, for heaven's sake, leave it for a decade or so and entrench it after a time when we have seen it working.

Mr Speaker, in summary, this legislation is anti-democratic. It does not look after the minorities in our society. It does not allow for full contestability of decisions. That is the biggest problem with this particular piece of legislation before us. It will allow a process by which minorities and the disempowered have less and less advantage and the view of the majority simply dominates. We do not need CIR to get the view of the majority. We can interpret that pretty easily. What we need to do is ensure the real test of a democracy - and the real test of a democracy is how well it handles the vulnerable.

MR OSBORNE (6.51): Mr Speaker, I feel like the Labor Party today, I have to say: I have not been able to make up my mind. I have been going from yes to no and from no to yes. If I could have weaseled my way out, I would have, like the Labor Party. Mr Speaker, when this Bill first came before the Assembly, I opposed it. I think we all opposed it - very quickly, too - from memory. My chief concern with the CIR legislation came about because I had looked at the situation in California, where, among other things, it had been used to vote down taxes and prevent tax increases.

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