The similarity between euthanasia laws and guns goes beyond the mere fact that they both kill people.
The two issues are classic examples of the democratic gulf: where large and clear majorities of the Australian population favour one thing but their political representatives refuse to give it to them … at least until now, and then only piecemeal, begrudgingly.
Polls show consistently that large majorities do not want automatic and semi-automatic weapons and probably that they do not want any firearms of any sort in cities and towns, other than for police.
Polls show consistent majorities for the proposition that people in pain with terminal illnesses should be able to have a doctor assist them end their life at a time of their choosing, so they can end the pain and die in dignity, provided there is proper consent and cooling-off arrangements.
Legislatures have refused to act until very recently. It took the massacre of 35 people in Tasmania for them even to think about guns, and it took the ghastly death of the mother of a very popular Chief Minister in the Northern Territory whose word largely became law before a euthanasia law was passed.
Why the reluctance to allow the majority will? The reaction to proposed euthanasia and guns laws points the way. The opposition to them is well-organised, noisy and vehement. Those who oppose do so with great passion. It indicates that they would be prepared to change their vote on that issue alone. Faced with that fact, the average MP and political party will not offend them, especially as most seats in Australia turn on just a few per cent of people changing their vote. On the other hand, the large majority in favour of such laws will not change their vote on that issue alone, but will vote on the whole range of issues and their natural inclination, so they can be ignored.
The result is a democratic gulf … the majority does not get its way.
Now I don’t think that ephemeral majorities should always get their way or be able to deny fundamental rights of others. But I think that when majorities hold up in opinion polls over a long period, it indicates that people have come to their conclusions after some thought. And there should be a way for them to by-pass intimidated politicians to get their will put on the statute book.
In the midst of the debate on these issues this week, the ACT Attorney-General, Gary Humphries, reintroduced his Community Referendum Bill which will permit ordinary voters to initiate legislation through referendum. That legislation can include repeal of existing Acts.
To date citizens’ initiated referendum (CIR) has been associated with lunatics from the far right and far left. But the euthanasia and gun debates should result in more support from the moderate centre.
Sure, the League of Rights and Dennis Stevenson and other people with fringe beliefs support CIR. They do so in the misguided belief that a majority of Australians share their silly views.
It is time to call their bluff. If we had CIR, we could say to the vociferous gun proponents: “”If you think you are in a majority you will have a chance to organise a citizen’s initiated veto of the Howard gun laws. Or put up your own law saying people have a right to own semi-automatic weapons … and see what happens.”
Moreover, we could say to the politicians, unless you get off your bums and enact the laws we want, we will do the job for you.
Similarly, the religious minority that wants to impose their view on euthanasia on the majority could be told the same thing.
Unfortunately, Mr Humphries’ Bill is unlikely to succeed in the ACT. The cross-benchers like to monopolise these sorts of issues themselves with private members’ Bills. CIR would make a lot of the work of Independents superfluous. Worse, for them, many single-issue voters would no longer need to vote for them because they would direct their single-issue projects to CIR.
The objections to CIR are numerous, but basically are reduced to a belief that people are too stupid or ignorant to make decisions on single issues and will be easily swayed by expensive advertising campaigns. This is despite the fact people are allowed to be trusted with weighing up the whole gamut of issues every election.
The Humphries Bill overcomes many of the other objections. CIR will not be done in haste; the time requirements require at least six months from gestation to legislation. On expense, most referendums will be held concurrently with elections, and the threshold of five per cent of signatures is a significant hurdle. Moreover, if a referendum is in the air and polling is showing strong approval it is likely the Assembly will pass the law before a referendum is required. On the people’s ability to draft laws, they will get professional drafting help. There are other checks and balances to ensure constitutionality and workability. The details in the attached table.
But the most significant effect will be on the conduct of politicians themselves. At present they can be intimidated by well-organised single-issue interest groups. With CIR hanging over their heads they will be more careful about caving in to those groups’ demands, or they can escape the pressure from those groups by suggesting to them that if their proposal is so popular and meritorious they should organise their own CIR.
The guns and euthanasia issues (and to some extent the shop-hours issues in the ACT) show that the fringe pressure groups get their way in the absence of the steadying effect of CIR. Those pressure groups may well put on expensive advertisements during a CIR campaign, but people are not stupid.
Ordinary voters are far less likely to listen to the rifle and shooters’ propaganda than politicians.