They all share a belief in direct democracy and will play a central role at a conference on it on Thursday. The aim is to enable citizens who gather a threshold number of signatures to force a referendum on a law they are proposing or a law they want repealed.
Federally, this may be far-off fantasyland, but not so in the ACT. Some form of direct democracy is very likely very soon. The Liberals are to put a Bill to the next sitting and the Independents are very likely to support it.
Whenever I mention direct democracy I get a scornful reaction, usually along the lines that it will enable the far right to get up lunatic proposals, like castration for rapists, right to carry guns, capital punishment and so on.
However, it seems to me that it is far easier for noisy minorities to get their way by persuading a few key parliamentarians than it is to persuade a majority of all voters.
I wonder, for example, what would happen in referendums on issues that have generated a lot of heat in the ACT: in-fill, smoking in public places, euthanasia, the hospice on Acton and so on.
It may be that developers, the hospitality industry, the religious minority and the dogmatic left have persuaded a majority of MLAs on each of these issues contrary to what a majority might decide. Alternatively, it may be that the issues are only being stirred by a noisy minority.
The significant point is that at present we cannot tell. Moreover, those people who feel strongly about one or other of these issues have a sense of powerlessness. They vote once every three years, but on a conglomeration of issues. They may generally like and want to vote for a party that is against them on that one issue and generally dislike and not want to vote for a party which is with them on that one issue. Or they may feel that even if they vote for a party that promises to deal with the issue in the way they want, the party might break its promise. The party might allow its promise to be watered down after well-financed and well-organised minority groups puts the pressure on. The gun laws are a good example.
Suspicion of citizens’ initiative is understandable. People often do seem ill-informed, prejudiced and naive about issues. But that arises precisely because people feel powerless about doing anything on an issue, so why bother getting informed.
However, when a referendum is on and people do feel they are going to be asked to vote directly on an issue, they get better informed. Often in referendum campaigns opinion, as measured by the polls, changes.
On the other hand, sporadic polling on once-only issues that are not the subject of referendums gives an impression that people can be captured by the far right or looney left. Binding referendums with something at stake, however, make people think a little longer and what seemed like an appealing idea from the looney fringe does not get off the ground.
What about the expense? Expense can be reduced by ensuring nearly all referendums are held concurrently with elections. Moreover, referendum proposals should go to Parliament first and it should get a chance to pass the law, obviating the need for a referendum. Parliament is likely to do this if its Members see an issue is on a roll.
Usually, those in power will not willingly yield any power, so citizens’ initiative has had a hard time in Australia. Sometimes, however, hung Parliaments enable changes that take power away from the Executive and give it to Parliament or take power away from Parliament and give it to the people. A good recent example was when Independents forced changes through in NSW, including no early elections and more financial accountability.
The ACT is in a similar position and the Independents who generally support the Labor Government will vote with the Liberal Opposition to put Australia’s first citizens’ initiative scheme through. If it is seen to work here, people in other jurisdictions will start asking for a similar harness for their politicians.