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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3290 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

So what mechanism is left to consider different ways of being able to generate community participation in the decisions that affect this community intimately? We had earlier this week an opportunity for another kind of mechanism, a politician-initiated referendum, which was rejected by the Assembly. The argument used, including by Ms Tucker, was that it was inappropriate to refer social issues to referenda. I think that was her argument anyway. We have had several attempts in this place to engineer a kind of consultation process about the way in which a budget is put together, and that has met almost universal resistance around this chamber.

So I would say to people who today propose to put up their hand and vote against this CIR bill, "Do you believe in greater involvement by citizens in the decisions of this place, and if you do, what exactly are you in favour of? What exactly are we going to do to engineer a greater sense of community participation in the decisions that affect that community?" I would argue that it is a question that we cannot long ignore, because what I think Ms Tucker or Mr Moore referred to as the democracy deficit is growing larger every year.

I believe that organisations like the One Nation party are partly explained by that democracy deficit. The idea that people can be ignored to a large degree and their views not represented by the processes and systems in place leads in turn, inexorably, to a sense of alienation and a sense that something has to happen. I think One Nation is entirely the wrong response to that phenomenon, but we need to ask ourselves what is the right response. What do we do to change that dynamic?

I want to comment on some of the mechanics of this process. It is laid out in this bill and it has been put four times before this Assembly, so I do not propose to explain what the mechanism is. Members can see that for themselves.

Mr Stanhope said that there would be a referendum every year, potentially, under this system. It is worth reminding members that to trigger a referendum you require 10,000 electors signing a petition to say we want a referendum. In fact, well in excess of that figure. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is very hard to get 10,000 signatures on a petition. It is hugely labour-intensive to do that.

In the 12 years up until the end of last calendar year the ACT Legislative Assembly has received 289 petitions. Of those 289 petitions, only nine were of 10,000 or more signatures. Of course, that might not have been under the mechanism required by CIR, which means you have to have only ACT electors and you have to explain what the referendum is all about, et cetera, et cetera. So it is not easy. You do not get referenda every day under this mechanism. It is very, very difficult. Incidentally, to get a referendum in a year other than an election year you require 20,000 signatures, not 10,000, so it will not be happening often.

We have heard the argument from Mr Moore that CIR facilitates the oppression of minorities. I have heard that argument and I understand the potential there, but I think that what he ignores is the reality that when you give people power with that power comes some sense of responsibility. People might express a view in a telephone poll about euthanasia or abortion or the Gungahlin Drive extension route, whatever it might be, but when they actually have the power to make the decision, when a decision actually

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