Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4653 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
I am not in this place because I believe that the electors of the ACT, or anywhere else in Australia for that matter, are fundamentally capable of being hoodwinked in that way. I think our electorates in this country - and particularly in the ACT - are intelligent enough, educated enough and sophisticated enough to consider these issues in a sensible way and make a rational decision. We have had elections in this country where four or more issues have been placed before the electorate at the same time in a referendum, and we have expected and we have obtained sensible, balanced decisions from the electorate in each of those cases.
Ms McRae: No, we have not.
MR HUMPHRIES: That betrays the Labor Party's view, does it not? They think that the electorate is not smart enough to make the decisions that they think it ought to be making. That is what it boils down to. The electorate is not making the decisions that they think it ought to be making, Mr Speaker. I think that is the fundamental problem we have with those people opposite - those people who oppose this issue. They do not trust the electorate to make sensible decisions. Mr Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side of the chamber do believe that. We do believe that they have enough sophistication to make those decisions. We would like to hope that in the future - not today, of course, but in the future - those electors will be given the chance to make those decisions on that basis in a direct democratic process.
Question resolved in the negative.
MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 46, I would like to make a personal explanation. In the debate on the Artificial Conception (Amendment) Bill 1996, Mrs Carnell implied that the Greens - and Labor, for that matter - have been lazy or slow to respond to this issue. I just want to point out that we received this report on the Artificial Conception (Amendment) Bill from the Community Law Reform Committee about two weeks ago. We have sought outside legal advice, and we have certainly taken a lot of trouble to have an intelligent response; but the point I am trying to make here is that it was incorrect to imply that we have had time to organise a round table and to actually work on changing this Bill. I am not satisfied with the time we have been given.
Debate resumed from 14 December 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .