The ACT Liberals introduced legislation this week for citizens’ initiated referendums. It is the fourth time they have done so, but this time it stands some chance of success. Under the latest proposal put by Justice Minister Gary Humphries a group that wanted to force a referendum on a particular issue would need to first get the support (by signature on a petition subject to audit) of 5 per cent of electors, or about 10,000 people. A referendum could not be held till at least six months after an idea had been initiated, and referendums would generally be held with Assembly elections.
Independent Paul Osborne has opposed the introduction of citizens’ initiated referendums in the past, but he said he was considering supporting the Bill this time, subject to some changes, including a higher threshold of support before a referendum would be called. His offsider, Dave Rugendyke, said he was still considering the issue. The Government would still need the support of former Liberal Trevor Kaine to get the Bill through, presuming Labor, Independent Michael Moore and the Greens Kerrie Tucker oppose it.
Under the proposal ideas would have to be vetted and crafted into reasonable legislative form. Bill requiring extra money would not be allowed.
There are problems with citizens’ initiated referendums. One is that sectional interests can push an idea if they get enough money behind them to advertise a Yes vote. Another is that government is often a balancing act between competing interests and middle-ground legislation is required. Legislation is also a deliberative process that frequently requires adjustments and amendments in its making and amendments after it is enacted. That is not possible under CIR.
Objections about cost and the possibility of lunatic proposals becoming law have less force. Referendums would be concurrent with Assembly elections. The electorate is not so stupid as to provide enough threshold signatures, or if it does to provide a majority vote at referendum time.
There is a superficial attraction to CIR. Democracy should enable the people to have their say. But the strength of representative democracy lies in the fact that it is responsible also. It means that legislative majorities are answerable to an electorate for the whole range of their performance at election time. It enables MLAs to resist short-term populist pressure from time to time to make legislative changes that might in the longer term prove folly.
CIR has not be tested in Australia. That is not enough reason on its own for not trying it. But it is reason to be very cautious. In parts of the US and Europe it often works reasonably well, but still causes problems when laws are passed by populist pressure that terrible consequences that are not easily undone. California’s withdrawal of government aid for illegal immigrants was a good example.
In the case of the ACT, it might be preferable for Mr Humphries to move in stages. There would be much less potential for harm if, at least initially, the proposal were only one for citizens’ veto. In parts of Europe and the US this allows a referendum to veto legislation passed by the Assembly after a referendum initiated by a certain per cent of people singing a petition. But it would not enable the creation of new legislation. That should satisfy desires for people power without moving into more unsettled waters.