Direct democracy comes to Australia

It is gratifying that the Bill itself refers to the inalienable rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where Article 19 provides “that people should have the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression”. And further, paragraph (a) of Article 25 states “that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

It is ironic that the Coalition Government is relying on the ICCPR ratified by Australia to support its Plebiscites Bill, whereas it totally ignored Article 25 when it made the laws ending prisoners’ right to vote, which were successfully challenged in the High Court by Vicki Roach recently. There is a ludicrous inconsistency here.

While recognising that Australia is a representative democracy and supporting what that entails, I support direct democracy in defined circumstances because it promotes popular engagement with the political process on questions of public importance, particularly in matters that affect people immediately and specifically.

Increasingly we need to recognise that local people are best served when they are able to determine what happens in their own backyard, whether it is the placement of a pulp mill, the location of a nuclear power plant, or the amalgamation of their local council with another.

This is particularly important when representative governments are at odds with each other. For example the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania has local, state and federal governments in difficulties, and some very agitated citizens groups. People directly affected should be entitled to say whether they want a pulp mill or not, and if they do, whether it should be in Bass’ Tamar Valley or in nearby Braddon.

Non-binding plebiscites have their place. They are an expression of opinion that politicians must then take into account. Representative democracy requires representatives to make decisions on behalf of voters. It is the bedrock of our system.

There are circumstances when voters make the final decision, and Australia’s constitutional referenda fall into that category.

Plebiscites that are little more than an opinion poll are likely to have little effect unless they are done on a large scale. There is no doubt that if a plebiscite vote meant that the majority of people in local councils to be amalgamated were opposed to that proposition, it would give the Queensland Labor Government pause, even “though it does not mean that the state government has to take popular opinion into account and change the law accordingly”.

The question is - will the Plebiscites Bill encourage a further look at CIR?

CIR has a different effect from a plebiscite as it seeks to require governments and parliaments to act on the opinion of a majority of the voters. It is not just any opinion. CIR is inevitably and rightly constrained to defined circumstances. To do otherwise risks rule by the mob when emotion, not reason, prevails. Without constraint CIR could also potentially be an obstacle to effective government if the system permitted too many issues, particularly fringe issues, to be the subject of referenda.

The fears can be over-stated. Even in countries similar to Australia, such as New Zealand, where CIR have been established since 1993, the results have not necessarily brought about any legislative change, although they have, according to researchers, been the trigger for political parties to amend legislation, or introduce legislation on particular issues.

However, based on the experience of other countries, there is sufficient research and experience from their direct democracy structures to be able to construct an effective form of it for Australia.