The ACT Liberal Party is toying with the idea of conducting a referendum at the election on October 20th. The referendum would ask whether there should be trials for a safe injecting room, for the provision of heroin under medical supervision for addicts and a trial for the use of the drug Naltrexone in a detoxification program.
At first blush, many voters would welcome more consultation from governments in of the form of a referendums. Calls for referendums are quite frequent among the contributors to Letters to the Editor columns, for example. Referendums are used to very frequently in the United States and Europe to resolve policy questions. In Australia, of course, we use them as the only method to change our federal Constitution. There is, however, a big difference between a referendum on a complex question of medical or criminal law and a question about the system of government. Questions about the latter are very suitable as referendum questions. It is important for the legitimacy of government that the people are sovereign and that the people have consented to the way in which there are ruled. Referendums also perhaps have a place in citizens’ veto once laws are passed.
The trouble with submitting specific policy matters to referendum is that people by and large do not see it their job to get to themselves thoroughly knowledgeable about every issue of government. That is the purpose for which they elect others. Moreover, governments have access to a bureaucracy and any number of specialist advisers, so should be in a better position to make a decision.
Referendums on complex single issues can be flawed when there is compulsory voting because the large number of apathetic voters forced by law to attend the polling place are likely to just say No if they have not had the chance to research at question in detail. Indeed, that propensity is so high that any government wanting it to put an issue permanently into the too-hard basket would submit it to referendum. The other difficulty with government by referendum is that it invites a knee-jerk reaction by voters which could be set in concrete. Governments would do better to persuade people over time.
There is an argument that the mere presence of a referendum would engender debate and may persuade people to the best course of action. In practice, however, this is often not the case. Invariably, voters only turn their attention to the referendum question very shortly before they have to vote and then squeal that there has not been enough time to digest the issues.
The tentative wording of these questions indicates the difficulty of using referendums as a way to deal with complex issues. Each of the questions begins with the words: “Do you believe the ACT should….” Surely, dealing with the heroin problem should not be a question of belief, but rather a problem tackled after a great deal of analysis and thought applied to a great deal of data and research. Governments should not act of what they think is the belief of people in the community but should rather act after careful analysis of the issues in a way that they think will be the best for the community.
There seems to be an element of the Democratic paralysis here. The government appears to be too scared to do anything lest it cost a few votes. The only antidote they can see for that appears to be a referendum. Surely, a better antidote would be to explain to voters why a certain course of action is being embarked upon and if the government is convinced that it is the best way to go, it should take the risk that the hearts and minds of voters will follow.