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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3284 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

If the community feels that representative government is failing, then we should try to fix it, not set up ways to circumvent it. We have often raised concerns in the Assembly about how decisions are made by the executive without the full involvement of the rest of the members and about the lack of community consultation by this government. Changes to the way that government and the Assembly operate could significantly improve negative public perception about politicians and hopefully reduce the feeling in the community that the issues of most concern to them are not being adequately addressed.

We believe it would be preferable for the Assembly to act in a more inclusive and participatory manner rather than let the community have to rely on CIR to get their views heard. Citizen-initiated referenda oversimplify complex issues to a yes/no vote by the public, who may not have the expertise or information with which to consider all aspects of the issue.

Imagine if there was an initiative to reduce property rates. It would not be possible through the CIR process to ask which government services the community would like reduced at the same time, because of the reduction in government revenue. CIR does not provide an opportunity for negotiation, compromise and consideration of alternatives.

Issues of public policy are by nature invariably complex, and it would be a betrayal of the community who elected us to put in place a CIR system that was unable to cope with this complexity. As members here would know, the translation of an idea into a piece of legislation entails much consideration of the details required to put that idea into practical effect.

Conversely, trying to understand the implications of other people's bills can also be very difficult. Even after a bill is drafted, we often resolve complex issues through amendment and round table processes, which often take time and negotiation. Expecting the community to undertake a thorough analysis of an initiative without the necessary background and experience, and perhaps having to do this on a number of issues on the so-called community consultation day or election day, is just asking for bad laws to be made. Even though an Assembly is not bound to pass a piece of legislation that has been to a referendum, the political pressure on them to do so would be enormous.

The whole idea of having just one community consultation day is abhorrent to the Greens. Democracy does not begin and end on election day. Community consultation should be happening on every day, not just once every three years. We would not want any government to think that CIR abrogates their responsibility to undertake full public consultation on issues as they arise.

Another problem with CIR is that the initiation of referenda is likely to be undertaken by groups that already have sufficient resources to mount a major campaign to get signatures and to promote their cause. An argument that has been put forward in support of CIR is that well-resourced lobby groups already have too much say over decisions in parliaments, more say than the general public. CIR is unlikely to change this. These groups will just use CIR where necessary to get what they want. The power of lobby groups under a CIR system could become more based on slick advertising, not the promotion of quality information.

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