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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4644 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The second main problem for individuals with the CIR proposal is the underlying requirement for individuals to be aware of and have an informed view on the full range of issues being discussed and debated within the community. The ability of individuals to be fully informed on a wide range of political and policy interests is somewhat limited in the real world. People have families, jobs and interests and lives to lead. That is why they elect politicians to represent them in parliaments such as this. This further exacerbates the ability of sectional interest groups to hijack the political agenda. Should the CIR proposal become law, the Assembly will have to be responsive to these issues. This will result in attention, time and resources being diverted away from the normal work of the Assembly to those issues being advocated by sectional interest groups through CIRs. This, in Labor's view, will not benefit the whole community, but will instead further the interests of those within our community who can afford to maximise their political influence.

In this context, it is necessary for me to outline what I mean by sectional interest groups. Within our political system, groups of individuals and/or corporations with similar political views have tended to create coalitions in order to influence and direct public debate on issues that directly affect them. This is a natural development within a democratic society, particularly as society becomes increasingly corporatised. Many of these groups have moved on from being coalitions of people and corporations of similar views to becoming well-funded, highly resourced and sophisticated lobbying groups. We are all familiar with those. Through a variety of mechanisms, these organisations are in a position to influence and direct decisions, debates and parameters of community and political thought. Access to the media and decision-makers provides these lobbying organisations with the ability to substantially further their own interests. Examples of some of these groups that could then turn these talents to CIRs are the tobacco lobby and tobacco companies, the gun lobby and the Right-to-Lifers, amongst others.

One of the most common criticisms I hear from my constituents is that the big corporations and lobby groups control the political agenda too much. Instead of debating issues relating to jobs, health, education and community care, the Assembly spends endless time debating property development, licensing agreements, gambling licences, gun laws, rules for smoking in enclosed public places, et cetera. It is important to recognise that the sectional interest groups that are capable of directing political debate are not Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, the mentally ill or public transport users. They are the hoteliers, the tobacco companies and property developers, who have the ability to wield political influence. They can do so because they have the resources and the time and because it is in their commercial interests to undertake such activity.

So, Mr Speaker, against this background, we have to ask: Why are the Liberals pushing this agenda? For the Liberals, community- or citizen-initiated referenda represent the opportunity to play the politics of division. The Chief Minister and Mr Humphries have obviously been doing some bedtime reading of the American Republicans' campaign manual. They have decided that the best kind of politics to engage in is wedge politics - the politics of dividing the community in order to create coalitions of support that may not

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