STATE PLEBISCITE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.B. Such:

That this house calls on the state government to facilitate, via the State Electoral Commission, a plebiscite at the next state election so that voters can indicate their views on a range of social and economic issues.

(Continued from 19 February 2009. Page 1655.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:32): When I focus on particular issues that are brought before the house on Thursday mornings and in the early afternoon, I feel compelled to speak on some of these matters. The issue the member for Fisher has before the house at the moment in relation to state election plebiscites is one such issue I do feel compelled to speak about. I speak in opposition to his proposal, which states:

...a plebiscite at the next state election so that voters can indicate their views on a range of social and economic issues.

To me, it is quite a nebulous proposition, and there are no real specifics. I read part of the member's second reading contribution—and it is a matter he raised in 2006—and the state Liberal parliamentary party opposed it then, and we obviously continue to oppose it.

The member says that there is a distinction between a referendum and a plebiscite, and it is sometimes referred to as an 'indicative' referendum. I think we are getting a little bit technical, a little bit cute by half (if I can describe it that way) in the way the member for Fisher is looking to pursue and progress this matter.

Reading further the contribution he made on 19 February, the member talks about a range of issues. He says that the community could also be asked about their priorities in terms of funding for health, education and social issues. He talks about abortion, prostitution and a whole range of other social issues. He also talks about a questionnaire he undertook with 1,300 households within his electorate and how he structured that questionnaire.

It is all very informative, but I do not regard it as a necessity at the time of a state election. I think it is an indulgence—and a very expensive indulgence—if I could describe it in that way. For the past seven years, we have heard the mantra of this state Labor government on health, education, and law and order—which encompasses social issues, and so on. I know there has been significant feedback from the community in relation to those issues that the government continually bangs on about. It is totally unnecessary, to be quite frank, to look at this proposal of the member for Fisher for a plebiscite.

The parliament has traversed the issue of prostitution over many years. At the time of the last Liberal government, I understand that that debate came to the fore but was not progressed in terms of reforming the legislation on that social issue. The issue of abortion has been traversed at length throughout the history of the parliament. It does not take a state operated plebiscite to understand the views of certain sections of the community on those issues. I am happy to speak on these matters when they come before the parliament. I understand it is the state Liberals' position that we oppose the proposition of the member for Fisher and, as such, I am compelled to make these remarks in the parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.