ACT Chief Minister Gary Humphries has put citizens’ initiated referendums back on the agenda. It had been very much on the agenda five years ago – – before Pauline Hanson rose to prominence. It was perhaps the beginning of the voter backlash against what was seen as the arrogance of government. Citizens’ recall and it citizens’ veto were also part of that agenda.
CIR is seen as a means of putting power in the hands of the people in the face of what is seen as uncaring or aloof government. Five years ago and the proposal was almost legislated in the ACT, only just missing out on the numbers.
Once again, it seems that CIR is being used to appeal to voters who feel that government is failing them. But in returning to this proposal, Mr Humphries seems to have misinterpreted the nature of voter disillusionment.
There is nothing much wrong with citizens’ initiated referendums. The details of the proposal worked out by the Liberal Party a couple of years ago seemed eminently workable. The argument against it – – that zealots would be able to get all sorts of lunatic schemes up – – does not wash. After all, 50 per cent of the voters have to approve a proposal before it becomes law. Surely, 50 per cent of the voters of the ACT are not zealots and lunatics.
If the scheme came into effect, it is likely that some way-out proposals might be bandied about, but most would not get the five per cent threshold of signatures required to put the question to the people. And even if they did, silly proposals would not win majority support. After an initial spurt of proposals, things would inevitably settle down and only proposals with significant support would get a run. And in any event, those are the very sort of proposals that the assembly would run with anyway.
In short, though workable and even desirable, CIR is unlikely to be a the panacea for voter disillusionment.
You see, voters are not especially disillusioned with the legislative process or with the legislation that comes out of the Assembly. No, they are angry about executive actions.
Typical executive actions which annoy voters are things like poor spending priorities, allowing development to be a blight on residential amenity in the suburbs of when there are perfectly good parking lots in the centre of the city for residential infill, and the appointment of mates and hacks to various statutory boards.
Legislation sets out broad rules, but a lot of power is delegated to the executive. Lots of legislation contains words like, “the minister may ap
point…”, “the minister may allocate funds to…”
It is the exercise of these powers which is causing voter resentment, both locally and federally. Spending money on car races, futsal slabs and the like while teachers and nurses have to fight every inch of the way for educational and health money and while the waiting list for surgery to grows ever longer, causes voter fury. Appointing political hacks and mates to the ABC board likewise causes fury.
Also last week, the Leader of the ACT Opposition, Jon Stanhope, put his proposal to counter voter disillusionment with the processes of government. He concentrated on structures and processes. That was all very admirable and a necessary first step, but again it is not so much the rules but the way they are being applied that is causing the anger.
Stanhope urged a redrafting of the Freedom of Information Act, for example. But that will not help if the executive branch of government is determined to govern in secrecy. The present Act is perfectly satisfactory if it is applied with good will and with the eye to openness and accountability.
It is similar on the Federal scene. The major gripes have been about executive actions – – misuse of perks, breaches of ministerial conduct and even the wretched BAS statement were executive. The complicated BAS form and extra details demanded were bureaucratic demands not demands placed by the Parliament.
The answer to voter anger appears to lie in members of the executive – – namely Ministers – – behaving themselves better. In short, they need to avoid circuses, secrecy and favouritism.
Citizens’ initiated referendums can have their uses but even if the people produce the best legislation possible, there is no point in it if the executive continues to behave arrogantly. Moreover, even under the Humphries plan, money bills are specifically excluded from a citizens’ initiated referendums. Yet it is the misallocation of monetary resources that gets up voters’ noses.
Something like citizens’ veto where people can veto legislation passed by the existing politicians also has merit in that it can operate as a bulwark against poor legislation. But once again, it cannot prevent the executive from behaving with secrecy.
By all means have CIR and citizens’ veto, but do not expect it to significantly improve government.
The best catalyst for improvement of government is openness. If government wants to keep something secret, prima facie, there is something wrong with it.
The irony is that the executive Governments use secrecy, circuses and favouritism in order to hide their bad points and promote support for themselves. In the long run, however, secrecy and circuses have precisely the opposite effect. In the long run, openness, decency and looking after the middle ground have their own political reward. They are good politics as well as good governance.