Constitution (Citizen-Initiated Referendums) Bill

Page 5669
Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.


Debate resumed from 26th September.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.4]: I support the Constitution (Citizen-Initiated Referendums) Bill. The object of the bill is to enable electors to initiate referendums on proposed laws by petition signed by at least 2.5 per cent of the total number of electors and at least 2.5 per cent of the electors enrolled in each of a majority of electoral districts. The proposed legislation is much needed at the present time. In 1979 Mr Bob Hawke called for an informed and inquiring population. He said, "Relevant mandates will only emerge from a concerned electorate". The electorate has every reason to be more concerned today than in 1979. This bill will enable increasingly better informed and inquiring electors to play a vital role in enabling relevant mandates to be given to governments. Many matters that may be skipped through lightly during election campaigns often assume a character far more significant and concerning during parliamentary terms. Though electors may not wish to change a government because of one decision or one policy, it is improper to suggest that they should be rumbled over on matters they feel require community consultation. While Mr Hawke criticised the shortcomings in our parliamentary system, Mr Kim Beazley senior, in a newspaper article in the Sun of 26th September, 1977, clearly alerted the public to the virtues of citizen-initiated referendums. The article read:

Kim Beazley, Labor's former Minister for Education, has taken a hard look at the way a Westminster Parliament works and found it wanting!

He's found a better way - the Swiss version! The Swiss operate on consensus, and tight public control of politicians.

Mr Beazley is preparing to step down after 32 years in parliament, and he is disillusioned because our politics produce only division and partisanship.

"Parliamentary politics has developed into a system of organised blaming", he says.

The way the Swiss protect their prosperity and security is set out in their Constitution of 1848.

The constitution also requires that many matters of national importance can be decided only by referendum.

Consequently, Swiss politics is more of the people than of the politicians, says Mr Beazley.

He says: "They don't have ‘God governments'. Their governments are not named for leaders as though they belonged to them - ‘the Whitlam Government,' ‘the Fraser Government.'"

In effect, he appeals, as he prepares to leave parliament, for more consensus and consultation, and less ideology and politics in our Parliament.

He points out that in its earliest days the Labor Party advocated Swiss-style consensus Cabinets, regular referendums, and a permanent citizens army for Australia.

The bill has been developed in Australia based on the CIR legislation model of Professor Geoffrey Walker of the Queensland University. It is Australian legislation for Australian circumstances. Citizen-initiated referendum provisions in other countries had nothing to add. The major benefit of citizen-initiated referendums is to ensure that legislation has community legitimacy. Had citizen-initiated referendums been available, New South Wales may not have suffered the last general strike, which cost the State several hundred
Page 5670
million dollars in lost productivity, not to mention the reduction in income of tens of thousands of people. There could have been a citizen-initiated referendum on voluntary unionism. Responsibility alone would compel us to enable the community to demonstrate the existence of a concern in a convincing manner leading - only if the issue qualified as a petition subject for referendum - to discriminate voting of the electorate to finally resolve concerns. The availability of this process should result in general strikes becoming a thing of the past, which will benefit the whole community, whether employers or employees. The cost of a poll pales into total insignificance when compared with the cost of a general strike to the community.


In October a similar bill was tabled in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Similar bills are expected in other State and Territory Legislatures in 1992. People want a say. I hasten to inform this honourable House that at various times the bill has had strong support from members of all major political parties, usually when they were in opposition. The bill will promote unity in the community. The community polling facility and the spread for both qualification and approval purposes will ensure that only matters of widespread evidenced community concern qualify. The spread reflects parliamentary procedures. No legislation can be proceeded with that does not have majority support, and certainly it cannot be passed when it cannot obtain the support of a majority of members of Parliament. The provisions of the bill are the most difficult, in the sense that they allow no unrepresentativeness of any citizen-initiated referendum legislation in the world. Only real issues will be able to qualify. Paradoxically the purpose of this legislation is to strengthen our Westminster derived- system of government. As the Legislature becomes aware of demonstrated community concern and interest so as to confer a mandate, the Legislature and the Government will act to address concerns. The result is certain to ensure that very few referendums will qualify and even less will go to the polls, other than on matters the community wants settled in a conclusive manner. As a result, the esteem of a responsive Legislature and an in-tune administration will be enhanced in the community.


A notable feature is that Parliament is not bypassed. This and other features built into the bill will ensure a thorough examination of any proposal with a view to the proper addressing of every feature of any credible proposal. At any time members of Parliament will be aware of the ongoing support for a proposal. The process provides for a credible expression of genuine community response. I am aware of support for the bill in the major political parties and support by members of this House. I should particularly like to refresh the recollections of members of the Liberal Party about their policies and commitments. I draw particular attention to a motion moved at the Liberal State Council meeting on 6th February, 1988, which stated:

Agenda Item G: Motion 6

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUM.

The State Council of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party of Australia recommend that the Liberal Party of NSW adopt Citizens Initiated Referendum at State level as policy and prepare a Bill and accompanying regulations for its introduction in NSW.

Such bill to include the voters' power of initiative and referendum, to be introduced to Parliament within 12 months of the Party being returned to Government.

The motion was seconded and, following a spirited debate, was carried. At the Mittagong conference of the State Council of the Liberal Party the following motion was carried:


Page 5671

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA.

The State Parliamentary Party should take steps to implement the motion passed by the NSW State Council of the Liberal Party on February 6th, 1988, calling for Citizens Initiated Referenda to be introduced at the State level on gaining Government.

After debate, the following amendment was moved:

That the resolution on Citizens Initiated Referenda passed at the February 1988 meeting of the State Council be forwarded to the Premier, Mr Greiner, with the request that he direct the matter for the consideration of the Joint Standing Committee on State Policy.

The substantive motion was then voted on and carried. In the supporting notes, citizen-initiated referendums were seen as a desirable means of promoting a vision for the future of better and more democratic government. It is clear from the notes that the measure is one with public imagination and trust at stake, and it was expressed that the only hindrances to its implementation were the apprehensions of some New South Wales Liberal parliamentary members. Now that all members - Liberal, Labor, National and Democrat - are fully informed or have had the opportunity to be fully informed, it should be seen that these apprehensions are based on matters which are totally irrelevant to the bill introduced in this House. The opportunity is now provided for all members to trust the electors, who after all are trusted to vote for members of Parliament. Support for this bill will enable New South Wales to take a decided and statesmanlike stance for increased accountability and responsibility when they are so desperately needed. The time for platitudes has passed. To ensure the enhancement of the role and responsibility of Parliament, this bill is vitally required as law in the State of New South Wales. Wherever these provisions exist, there is an air of positiveness and assurance in the community and an unleashed dynamic which is evidenced by far greater community involvement and significantly increased community prosperity. I commend the bill.

[Debate interrupted]


The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Caroline Pickles, the Government Whip in the South Australian Legislative Council.

[Debate resumed]

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.16]: I oppose this bill in the strongest possible terms. It is an absolutely frightening and appalling piece of legislation. The last occasion on which I spoke in a similar manner -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I will have to send your speech to all National Party branches in New South Wales.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I would welcome Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile sending it to all National Party branches in New South Wales. As I was about to say, the last time I spoke in this House on a private members' day I supported Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Today, however, I am firmly opposed to the proposition that he has put before the House. In the contribution of the Hon. Elaine Nile it was interesting to note the absence of any reference to the passing of motions by the National Party. In fact the opposite has happened.


Page 5672
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It has happened in Queensland.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We are members of the New South Wales Government, at present dealing with matters affecting New South Wales. On numerous occasions the New South Wales National Party has passed motions opposing citizen-initiated referenda. I remind the House of a cold winter night about two years ago when more than 800 people packed into a high school auditorium in the Brisbane suburb of Kelvin Grove for a political meeting. The Prime Minister could not have attracted a crowd that size in Brisbane, or anywhere else that winter. Neither could Paul Keating or John Hewson, nor, I suspect, Joh in his heyday. I doubt whether any mainstream politician could have gone close to attracting such a large crowd. The drawcard on that particular winter night about two years ago was Peter Sawyer. A couple of years previously he had been a small-time clerk in the Department of Social Security in Western Australia. At that stage he was the nation's champion conspiracy theorist. Over the months Sawyer built up a following throughout the country areas.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: And he was wrong.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: He was demonstrating that his dangerous -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We do not support him.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Honourable members must understand how citizen-initiated referenda developed in Australia. Peter Sawyer was certainly very much in the vanguard of this insidious concept. He was spreading his own dangerous brand of right-wing nonsense. He had a large receptive audience in the cities as well. Chairing the meeting on that winter night was one Michael Darby. He was a well-known figure of the far right.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: He was in the Liberal Party.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is true. He was once the leader of the ultra-conservative New South Wales Liberal Party faction known as the "uglies". More recently, he masterminded an unsuccessful attempt to take over the Queensland branch of the National Party. Though we may not like what he stands for, he is a good operator. He was responsible for putting together the computerised election campaign which resulted in Joh's last landslide election victory in Queensland. So he is not a bloke to be underestimated. Unfortunately, he is also a fellow I went to school with, but that was a long time ago.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Send him off to join the Democrats.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: I do not wish to have to make another personal explanation today.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby assures me that even the Australian Democrats would draw the line at this fellow. Michael Darby's views are so extreme that the French have banned him from New Caledonia. The Kelvin Grove meeting was sponsored by the citizens-initiated referendum campaign, which was a movement aimed at having a Swiss-style referendum system introduced into Australia, which is what the bill of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is based on.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On Switzerland, not Darby.

Page 5673

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I said a Swiss-style. The basic premise is that citizens should petition for referendums if they object to government legislation or want to initiate laws. They could also make use of the referendum process to recall - that is, to sack - any politicians or officials whose performance they were dissatisfied with. If people did not like certain politicians, their actions or the legislation they were introducing, they could be sacked. People ask members of Parliament from both sides to have strength and integrity and to make the hard decisions. This system would mean that members of Parliament could not make the hard decisions.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Like the ID card.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I will come to that in a minute. Citizen-initiated referendums are the in thing with the far right, along with citizen electoral councils, CECs, which are supposed to take the place of the party system. The same mob puts both proposals up. People entering the hall at the meeting in Brisbane were handed copies of "Wake Up Australia", which is published by a group calling itself the Council for a Free Australia". The woman who runs the council and features as a columnist in the newspaper, Jacki Butler, was the Brisbane contact for Sawyer's June and July liberty speaking tour throughout New South Wales and Queensland. The crowd stood as Sawyer entered the hall, straining to see this bearded figure being shepherded down the aisle. Sawyer is not a polished speaker but the people at the meeting hung on every word. In Brisbane, as at other venues, they lapped up his bizarre message that Australia is sliding into a planned, totalitarian State, that it is all part of a conspiracy to bring about a world government, that Australia's billion dollar Parliament House is to be the new world government headquarters. The hub of the conspiracy is Canberra's Deakin Centre, where Sawyer says the Government has already secretly -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On a point of order. These remarks about Peter Sawyer and Federal Parliament House being the centre of a new world government have nothing to do with the citizen-initiated referendum bill, which is the very simple proposition before this House.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: On the point of order. I think the matters raised have a great deal of relevance because, as the Hon. D. J. Gay has pointed out, the citizen-initiated referendum cause in Australia has been born from these meetings that he referred to. I think his speech is leading on to the evolvement of this issue, not only in New South Wales but coming down from the north.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On the point of order. Following what the Hon. R. T. M. Bull said, this certainly is the genesis of the movement within Australia. To consider the bill of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile we have to look back at the genesis of the citizen-initiated referendum movement in Australia and know the people involved in the very origin of the movement. This has much to do with the bill under discussion.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not need to hear any more on the point of order. There is no substance to the point of order.
The Hon. D. J. GAY: Sawyer says that at the Deakin Centre in Canberra the Government has already interlinked departmental computers in gigantic Big Brother national surveillance. After the speech in Brisbane plastic buckets were passed around the hall. Even though there was a $2 admittance fee and many in the audience were far from well heeled, receptacles were quickly overflowing with cash. People filled in
Page 5674
attendance forms before leaving, enrolling as supporters of the CIR campaign and nominating the kind of help they were prepared to give - handing out literature, writing to newspapers, telephoning radio stations, collecting signatures on petitions, working for citizens' candidates at the next election, et cetera. I have a copy of the type of form for honourable members to view.


Names collected in this way were added to an already vast mailing list. Almost every aspect of the resurgence of the far right, which is causing deep concern, was embodied in that meeting - even to the point of literature from the anti-Semitic and secretive Australian League of Rights being displayed for sale. Books and pamphlets on offer included works by the league's founder and national director, Eric Butler. Among the other tracts was a paper entitled "Centralisation - The Policy of Satanism", originally delivered in a Canadian League of Rights seminar, informing readers of the slimy intrigues and the growing power of the oligarchy of finance founded by the houses of Rothschild.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Call to Australia dissociates itself completely from the League of Rights.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: I accept what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says. I know that he shares a common concern about the League of Rights. Both the National Party and Call to Australia have had their problems with the League of Rights in the past. I know that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile and I dissociate ourselves totally from the League of Rights. But what I am talking about is this meeting which was one of the founding meetings of the citizen initiated referendum movement. The tract I referred to went on to refer to the houses of Rothschild and the secret societies, today consolidated in international finance, international communism, international Zionism and the agencies they control. It was a bargain at 50c - the original league one world conspiracy theory without Sawyer's embellishments. The League of Rights is involved in the Sawyer phenomenon - up to its neck - and clearly influencing other groups which are playing a growing and disturbing role in the Australian political process. Queensland National Party Senator Ron Boswell, who I am sure -


Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We have worked with him. In fact we helped to elect him by giving him Call to Australia preferences.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Ron Boswell delivered a courageous speech in Parliament in April of that year, warning of the increase in the league's activities. At that time I distributed that speech to all members of this House. Some of the most conservative members of the Federal Senate echoed his warning. Boswell said:

The league attacked elected representatives from all parties and elected system of Government. The league thrives wherever there is discord, dissension, frustration, fear, resentment and financial hardship. It flourishes in times of drought, low commodity prices, high foreign debt and high interest rates. Recent events have led to an unprecedented expansion of its power, influence and the number of its supporters. The shadowy organisation prays on people's fears, exploiting, manipulating target groups as tools to promote the league's policy.

Boswell is a deeply religious man and was particularly concerned at the inroads the league had been making into the charismatic and fundamentalist churches and other similar groups.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: And the Uniting Church also.

Page 5675

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Uniting Church, Call to Australia and the National Party. Boswell told the Senate:

Many are being used as innocent vehicles to spread the word of the League of Rights. Decent men and women were responding to the League of Rights without knowing its true face.

The true face of the league has been well documented. It was established in 1946 and expanded into a national network in 1960. It was based on the strange, economic doctrine and antisemitic views of the English theorist, C. H. Douglas. The league operates principally through front networks. It exploits disaffected groups. It infiltrates other bodies or merely uses well-meaning, but unwitting, people and organisations. League publications proclaim the holocaust a hoax - blame the Jews for wars and depressions - and refer to a Jewish plot for world domination. Asked in July if he had any qualms about being associated with the League of Rights, Sawyer said:

They stand for a belief in God, Queen and Country, which I believe in. They stand for citizens initiated referendums, which I believe in.

He might have added that the league has always pushed the world government conspiracy theory, which he claims to believe in. The man who launched Sawyer on the extreme right-wing lecture circuit was Jeremy Lee, who for many years was the deputy director of the league. Lee remained secretary of the Institute of Economic Democracy, a division of the league, until June this year. Sawyer once described him as one of the most intelligent, interesting, informed, honest and courageous men in the country today. Lee has expressed similar praise for Sawyer. Lee did introductions for Sawyer at meetings and on video cassettes, assuring audiences that though he did not have sufficient time to document all his startling claims, the documentation is there and it fits in with his own experience. Recently, Lee called for an awakening of conscience among churches when he or someone like Jacki Butler needed help to distribute about 50,000 copies of a newspaper. He said that they could approach church leaders and that help would be forthcoming. Lee said:

There are resources there the like of which I have never seen. I have a feeling we are going to get to the stage where each church, under its pastoral supervision, opens up a new ministry which is a continuing thing.

In other words a ministry for political activity, and as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said earlier, that is an issue about which he has been concerned. Lee is now involved in a ministry for political activity. The Logos Foundation, which is often referred to as a militant Christian lobby group which works among churches, has become remarkably influential. Logos began operations in the New South Wales Blue Mountains, but has now relocated to Toowoomba, Queensland. The first major political exercise in which Logos involved itself was the campaign against the Bill of Rights in 1986. J. Carter, the director of Logos, wrote that the move into politics was in accord with the clear, confirmed word of the Lord. In 1986 Carter said that Australians were facing the loss of God-given freedoms, because we have allowed power and authority to political leaders greater than God's word permits. Hence, the aim of the current Logos project, a huge well-funded, well-organised campaign called Voters' Veto, Australians Speaking Up is a version of the citizen-initiated referendum idea which would enable voters to petition for a referendum if they disapproved of any present or proposed law.

The group behind Wake up Australia, like Sawyer and Logos, has been campaigning for the citizen-initiated referendum and citizens electoral councils concept, as has the league. It organised a public seminar on the subject in Toowoomba in May two years ago which was addressed by Eric Butler and others. Butler lectured in Inverell
Page 5676
on the subject of making Australia saleable, and Swiss referenda, throwing in the odd conspiracy theory on the international and big money control of political parties. Anything which discredits mainstream politicians and undermines the faith in existing party systems obviously suits the league. Jacki Butler's newspaper, distributed with considerable help from churches, is not averse to running this type of world government conspiracy rubbish. A recent article in Wake up Australia explained how legislation requiring the registration of firearms was part of a plot by our oneworld masters to progressively disarm the nation.

It does not matter how wild such claims were, or how often they were demonstrated to be false, Sawyer kept making predictions that failed to come true. For example, he predicted interest rates of between 27 per cent and 30 per cent by January 1990; a consumer credit collapse by March, which would leave many people homeless and bankrupt; the introduction of a totalitarian fascist state in Australia by 1990; an Aboriginal revolution leading to the arrival of an international peace-keeping force by May 1990 and so on. That background of the groups involved with promoting the citizen-initiated referendum ideal shows what they want to obtain. They want to be able to control the country through their own particular, peculiar and obnoxious pressure groups rather than the elected majority of Australian people. I turn now to what I consider to be the main points against citizen-initiated referenda legislation. The first point is that it undermines the existing system of government. Citizen-initiated referendum powers threaten the control of the political system of existing elected governments. Parliament should have the final say on laws, and its power should remain unchallenged except by itself. In Australia people have some power to challenge the Parliament through the existing constitutional amendment procedure that requires the vote of the people on a referendum. Honourable members no doubt recall the recent referendum that was held in New South Wales when the people of New South Wales were asked whether the number of parliamentarians for New South Wales, and their terms in Parliament, should be reduced. That power is available. It can be argued that parliamentary sovereignty reflects the sovereignty of the people and should not be undermined.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Wran referendum result on hotel trading hours was never implemented.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That would not happen with a conservative government. The third reason relates to a lack of understanding. Ordinary people are not capable of understanding the complexity of legislative proposals and could not produce acceptable laws - sometimes even politicians experience difficulty in that regard. Today government is complex and specialised. The power to legislate should, therefore, be left to Parliament, whose members have been elected on the basis of their experience, interests, and good judgment in public affairs. There are a number of further aspects to the argument. The quality of public debate is not as high as that of members of Parliament. The latter debate in an organised environment with the assistance of specialist backup research and advisory services. Unlike parliamentary debate, public debate does not provide opportunities for negotiation and compromise and a consideration of all possible alternatives. Voters would propose and support populist measures to achieve short-term goals at the expense of the country's long-term welfare. People's initiatives oversimplify important issues. Initiative measure campaigns in America have been said by some to be emotive rather than rational and to utilise simple slogans or buzz words, which can be misleading.

The third argument against citizen-initiated referendums is voter apathy. People
Page 5677
will not vote in sufficient numbers to give the referendum results legitimacy. In Switzerland and America voter turnout is nowhere near as high as it is in Australia. In those countries, where citizen-initiated referenda are held, voters have become blasé about the process. The fourth reason relates to tyranny of the majority; that is the threat of endangering the rights of minorities when majority rule is established. That the minority always has the opportunity to work towards creating a majority - indeed fulfilling the wishes of the majority rather than the wishes of the minority - is itself a linchpin of democracy.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Ordinary electors voted to put the honourable member into Parliament.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That was not a citizen-initiated referendum.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: You are putting down the ordinary voter.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Of course he is. The Country Party has always been like that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition supporting the legislation?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The parties are still discussing the matter. They will make their decision known in due course.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Regardless of the fact that the parties are discussing the legislation, I remain completely opposed to it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It would significantly aid the progress of debate if the Hon. D. J. Gay were able to complete his contribution without too much interruption.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The argument that voter initiatives will result in special interest group domination and that well-organised and powerful pressure groups will gain from voter-initiated procedure may be raised also in relation to elections and influence on governments generally. One possible example of that would be a group of powerful press barons combining to influence citizen-initiated referenda. The fifth argument is that of finance. Arguably it can be said groups or individuals with the most money will always succeed. The sixth reason is the cost involved. The objection can be raised that the voter-initiative process will be enormously costly. The costs would involve, among other things, the cost of signatures, of providing public assistance towards the printing of pamphlets, and the actual holding of referendums. The costs associated with the recent referendum in Australia were incredibly high for no tangible result. The Bill of Rights springs to mind. The seventh argument against citizen-initiated referendums is overuse. The introduction of a voter initiative would open the gates to an onslaught of voter-initiated laws. This would reduce the role of Parliament and, as a consequence, may deter able people from standing for Parliament. Another reason is that of political parties. Given that the value of direct legislation will be significantly diminished and that voters will evaluate referendums in the context of the recommendations of party machines, the parties will effectively sabotage the process during the initial referendum campaign. I wish to draw to the attention of honourable members arguments advanced by an American political scientist, David Magelby. They are as follows:

Many of those who champion CIRs are concerned only with their own inability to

Page 5678
influence public policy.

Persons who sign petitions do not read the petition they are signing.

A large number of initiatives end up being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

The success of a proposition can be determined by its position on a ballot paper and the "election mood" set by dominant propositions on the ballot paper.

All members of Parliament know about the donkey vote. David Magelby said further:

Propositions can be written to disguise what a "yes" or "no" vote means.

In order to meet signature thresholds, legal challenge and campaign costs, sponsors must have substantial political resources. Organised interests clearly have an advantage over most individuals.

Initiatives will increasingly be used by politicians to solidify support among single issue groups.

Items of direct legislation have not activated more than 30 per cent of the voting age population in any State studied.

No evidence exists for the claim that initiatives will increase voter participation or interest.

People who use the CIR mechanism and those who actually vote (i.e. voluntary voting in US) are unrepresentative by age, race, education and income.

Propositions and "yes" and "no" cases are unreadable for large numbers of voters.

Most voters come to ballot relatively uninformed about the propositions in which they are to vote.

Most voters show little interest in the proposition mechanism or content.

The important point is that alienated voters and citizens are more likely to vote on propositions than for candidates. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has covered in his bill the disadvantage that I acknowledge affects country people in citizen-initiated referendums.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We are happy to consider amendments to make the bill even stronger.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: To make the bill stronger?


Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: From your point of view. If you think there are any weaknesses in the bill, we are happy to consider amendments.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I do not feel obliged to look at amendments at all. I feel quite compelled to vote definitely against the bill without going to the committee stage to consider amendments to it. I find the whole process abhorrent.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: That is because the League of Rights really has taken you over.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I can assure the Hon. Elaine Nile that the League of Rights has not taken me over. Referendums as such would undermine existing law and government. In some instances voters would not be competent to judge issues and would
Page 5679
vote for populist measures: mobocracy would rule. Moneyed interests and the media would wield undue influence. In some instances proposals would be badly drafted and inflexible, though Parliament may have power to put a compromise proposal alongside the initial proposal. On face value I do not think the proposal will work and it is totally undesirable. For all those reasons that I have outlined I am totally opposed to the bill.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [3.55]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until Thursday, 12th December, 1991.

Question put.

The House divided.

Dr Burgmann
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Mr Enderbury
Mrs Isaksen
Mr Kaldis

Mrs Kite
Mr Macdonald
Mr Manson
Mr Obeid
Mr O'Grady
Mr Shaw

Mrs Symonds
Mr Vaughan

Tellers,
Ms Burnswoods
Mrs Walker
Noes, 20

Mr Bull
Mrs Chadwick
Mr Coleman
Mrs Evans
Mrs Forsythe
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Dr Goldsmith
Mr Jobling
Miss Kirkby
Mr Moppett
Revd F. J. Nile
Dr Pezzutti
Mr Ryan

Mr Samios
Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Webster
Tellers,
Mr Mutch
Mrs Nile
Pairs

Mr Hannaford
Mr Pickering

Mrs Arena
Mr Johnson

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment negatived.

The Hon. S. B. MUTCH [4.1]: Citizen-initiated referendums have had a long history of interest in Australia. I recall when I was a university student reading a biography of the great conservative Australian Prime Minister, Stanley Melbourne Bruce. As a young, not particularly aspiring candidate for office, Stanley Bruce faced a hostile audience at a public meeting. The first question he was asked was from the back of the hall, "What is your opinion of the initiative referendum and recall?" Of course, Stanley Bruce did not have the foggiest idea what the initiative referendum and recall was. He instinctively used the trick of turning the question back on the questioner. He said, "Before I answer that question, since you seem to be so enamoured of the concept of the initiative referendum and recall, why don't you inform this meeting of your opinion of the initiative referendum and recall?" As it turned out, the questioner had been supplied
Page 5680
with this question by someone else. He also did not have the faintest idea what the initiative referendum and recall was. I do not know how the meeting ended up, but I do know that Stanley Melbourne Bruce eventually became the Prime Minister of Australia, so he must have rectified his lack of knowledge in that particular area at least.

In those days the issue had a similar status to the status it has today. It is one of those seemingly good ideas that has great popularity among a wide section of the community but an idea that has yet to see its day in this country. Essentially, the idea of citizen-initiated referendums involves what is sometimes called the people's veto, where a prescribed number of citizens petition the government for a referendum to decide whether a bill that has passed through Parliament should become law, or the legislative initiative, which involves a prescribed number of citizens either petitioning the government to hold a referendum on a law proposed by the petitioners or on a proposition that an existing law should be repealed. In addition, there is a proposal that citizens might present a petition to the government requiring a referendum on a proposed alteration to the Constitution, for instance, at the Federal level. The mover of the bill, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, referred to Professor de Q. Walker, a staunch advocate of, and author of a book on, citizen-initiated referendums. Professor Walker submits that where citizen-initiated referendums are in operation - in Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, certain States of the United States of America and Canadian local government - they have proved to be a source of new legitimacy to law and a bulwark against extremism".

It has been argued by Professor Walker and others that in an age where, at least in industrial democracies, the electors are more educated and have access to more information as a consequence of the communications revolution, there is no longer an overriding justification for allowing representative assemblies a monopoly on lawmaking. It has been said that laws made directly by the people have greater legitimacy because the result of a referendum is there for all to see. In relation to pressure groups, citizen-initiated referendums are said to assist politicians, who can say to lobbyists pushing contentious issues: "Go out and gather support for your cause by collecting signatures. If you can prove sufficient community support, the matter will go to parliament and, if it gets to the stage of a referendum, the people will make the decision". Opponents of citizen-initiated referendums allege that they would undermine the authority of the elected government; that the voters would support populist measures; that a tyranny of the majority would be established; that vested interests and the media would wield too much influence; that citizen-initiated referendums are too costly and inconvenient; that they would be too inflexible, and that in this country, with a strong party political tradition, referendums initiated by the people simply would not work.

Contrary to the proposition that the electorate is better informed and therefore better able to make decisions directly, it is alleged that the information explosion tends to confuse people, who therefore need to rely more and more on elected representatives. In addition, detractors point out that the apathy of the Australian population might enable minority views to prevail in referendums marred by a low voter turnout. In rebuttal, it is argued that referendums should be held in conjunction with elections, or on just one day a year that is well promoted. It is argued also that, alternatively, it is open always to the majority to rescind an initiated law. Those are just a few of the arguments for and against citizen-initiated referendums. In analysing what citizen-initiated referendums are, there are a couple of other proposals that have also seen the light of day. Another proposal - that of the recall - may be invoked by a petition. Under that proposal, an elected member of the government, and possibly elected or unelected government officials, are subject to dismissal upon the acceptance by referendum of a proposal put
Page 5681
forward by a prescribed number of voters. The initiation of a referendum may be direct where the proposal supported by a petition is submitted directly for popular vote, although it may be indirect where the proposal is submitted to the Legislature first. If an indirect proposal is rejected by the Legislature, it is then submitted to a popular vote.


So far as I am aware the system of citizen-initiated referendums in the relevant sense of instituting constitutional change or general legislative change has not been introduced federally or at State or local government levels in Australia. However, historically citizen-initiated referendum movements have come and gone. At present there would seem to be an upsurge in groups and individuals committed to the introduction of the initiative, veto and recall, or variations thereof. Controversy has surrounded citizen-initiated referendums partly because of the perceived motivations of some of the large number of organisations actively campaigning for the initiative. For example, the concept of citizen-initiated referendums has been promoted by National Action, the Australian Nationalist Movement, the Australian League of Rights, the Immigration Control Association and the Council for A Free Australia. In addition, I am aware of an organisation called the Logos Foundation. I am unsure whether that organisation still exists.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It does.


The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile interjects to say that it does.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is now located in Canberra.


The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I think it was previously located in Toowoomba. That organisation promoted a concept called voters' veto. I do not know how that campaign has gone. I am not sure what has happened to the organisation, because there were problems associated with it. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has told the House that he is not associated with a number of organisations which would give the whole concept of citizen-initiated referendums a bad name. It is important that this House examines the bill objectively to determine its merits and debates it carefully. Obviously any bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - and he has told me that this bill was drafted by an eminent professor - deserves the full attention and consideration of this House. The Australian Labor Party seems to have long been opposed to the concept of citizen-initiated referendums. Although I am unsure of its present attitude, I suspect it still reflects that long-held view.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: They still have to discuss it with us.


The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile informs me that they still have to discuss it. The general platform adopted at the 1908 Brisbane conference of the Political Labor League included a proposal for initiative and referendum. That proposal was adopted and remained on the Australian Labor Party platform until 1963 when it was removed at the Perth Conference on the motion of Don Dunstan on behalf of the methods committee. I am not sure what the methods committee was but it sounds a little secretive.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: We have ways of making you talk.

The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: Is that the sort of committee it was?

Page 5682

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: We have our ways.

The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: Was it a "We have our ways committee", as the Minister interjects? The report of the methods committee noted that the proposal for direct legislation had been adopted to counter fears that the 1901 Federal Constitution had been written so as to entrench the forces of conservatism, whereas in fact great gains had been made by Labor through the Federal Parliament. It was the view of the methods committee that these devices would have hindered Labor governments far more than conservative governments and that the use of these devices would make it easy for conservatism to put brakes on parties advocating reform.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Slow down radical ideas.

The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: As the Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile interjects, they would slow down radical ideas. In addition, it was noted that there had been no significant interest in or agitation for that part of the platform for the past 50 years and the proposal ran counter to the development of the party system and the established traditions of Australian politics. The modern day thought emanating from the Labor Party is in a similar vein. The Labor Party feels that probably the first referendum that may come before the people of New South Wales may be a referendum for the return of capital punishment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 4.15 p.m. proceedings are now interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment motion if she so desires.