HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATE PLEBISCITE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:05): I move:

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.

I raised this matter back in 2006. I am a great believer in allowing people to have their say. Some may argue that people can have their say at election time; while that is true I think it is important in a democracy to consult the people as frequently as possible—otherwise it is not really a genuine democracy. Four-yearly elections are an indication of what people think in general terms, but I believe it would be useful, at the time of the next election and for little cost, to ask the community for its views on a range of issues.

It is important to distinguish between a referendum and a plebiscite. A referendum is a binding process that usually relates to things such as changing the constitution. I am not advocating a referendum; I am talking about a plebiscite. Some people call them advisory referenda and some refer to them as indicative referenda, but I think the term 'plebiscite' is more appropriate.

There is a history of these in Australia, although not on as wide a scale as I believe there should be. Back during World War I the community was asked, via plebiscite (they called it an 'advisory referendum'), for its views on military service, and people indicated that they did not support conscription. That was a fairly lively issue at the time, and one way of resolving it was to ask the community what its members thought. At various times both Western Australia and Queensland have asked their people about issues such as daylight saving; other states have also asked their communities what they think about a range of issues.

What issues could be asked? I guess there is no set limit, other than practicality. People could be asked for their views on reform measures relating to the Legislative Council. I am not certain what the government will do, whether or not it will put up a referendum to abolish the upper house (I suspect it will not, because I do not think that would succeed); however, the government could ask the public about what should be the role of the Legislative Council. I am not opposed to asking questions relating to the House of Assembly either, or to other areas or levels of government, such as local government.

As part of this procedure members of the public could be asked whether they support four-year terms for the upper house, and/or whether they support the upper house being able to delay but not block measures. That sort of thing could be part of it. The community could also be asked their priorities in terms of funding for health, education and social issues, and I will mention a couple. You could ask people about voluntary euthanasia or same-sex relationships, although I think that debate has probably moved on now. We were talking this morning about tattooing and body piercing; that is probably now basically resolved.

You could ask people about other controversial issues like abortion and the changes that could be made to the law and whether people want change at all. You could ask about prostitution reform. It does not have to be about moral issues; it can be a range of other issues as well. I think you have an opportunity, through the election at that time, to raise a lot of these important questions.

I do not think it would get confused with the general issue of which party or individual you are voting for, because I think the public is smart enough to realise that they are indicating a preference for certain issues as distinct from voting for a political party. Obviously, that would be abundantly clear by the format that you would use and the presentation of the material.

With modern computer technology, it is quite easy to tabulate the views. I am not suggesting that we allow people to put detailed comments, as that would be a huge task to analyse, but it is very easy to scan an indication of people's views using a five-point Likert scale or something similar.

In fact, I have just sent a questionnaire to the 13,000 households in my electorate. I have received nearly 400 replies in a short period of time. I used a five-point Likert scale—strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree or agree, agree, strongly agree—then I have allowed people to write comments on each topic and then, at the end, to make detailed comments on any other issue they wish to raise.

I have relayed these results to the relevant ministers, but it is not confidential, and anyone who wants to see the results or the survey format is most welcome to do so. In the kind of plebiscite I am talking about, you would not word the questions the way I have in the questionnaire to my electorate, because I have been focusing on the performance of the state government. You would not be asking that sort of question in a plebiscite at the time of an election, because it would be quite inappropriate.

I asked people a range of questions on whether enough was being done in regard to water supplies (retention and re-use); policies relating to what we call euphemistically law and order (crime, punishment and those sorts of things); the adequacy of health services in South Australia, because that is a very important issue; the adequacy of educational services, including universities, schools, TAFE and so on; whether the road network is adequate; whether public transport is adequate; and whether the Royal Adelaide Hospital should be replaced by the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. We know from yesterday that that name change has occurred, but the issue was not simply about the name: it was about whether the current hospital should be replaced by a new hospital.

I also asked the constituents whether they supported a bill of rights. That is going to be a very contentious issue. I do not know whether members have started to look at that in detail but, no doubt, that will be on the agenda in the very near future. It will cover things like freedom of religion and freedom of movement, and virtually everyone says they are in favour of it until you say what it might include. If you look at the United States, part of their constitution, as we know, allows people to carry arms, which I hope we never have here as a constitutional or bill of rights provision.

This will be a very vigorous debate, because there will be people who will talk about 'freedom of' and 'freedom from': freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to join a union or business group and so on. This could be one of the important issues to ask people, and it needs, obviously, to be expressed in an objective way. That can be done by professionals so that you are not going to get a loaded answer. I also asked them about voluntary euthanasia.

In my own local electorate, I have found that very useful in terms of finding out what people really think. If members think about it, the avenues open to people at the moment to express a view tend to be somewhat limited. Some people use talkback—and it is questionable how representative that is—letters to the editor or talking to their local MP and so on, but those avenues do not, in any way that is even remotely scientific, provide an accurate view of what the community really thinks.

This is not meant to be a government-only thing, obviously—that would be quite inappropriate—but I suggest to the government that it should involve various interested parties. If you want to have some fairness, you would go, as I suggest, through the electoral commission. You could have a group of independent experts, including a judge or others, to help formulate or determine what sort of questions might be asked.

It is not an original concept, given that we have had them in Australia off and on over many years but, if we want to take democracy to another level, why not do something radical? Why not ask the people what they really think about issues? I would question why anyone would not want to know what the community thinks about an issue.

As I say, it could encompass social and moral issues but also things like provision of health services and educational services. I will not go into the other area of the consequences of Australia becoming a republic because that will be canvassed in a future motion, but all those sorts of things can be put to the people and we can let them have a say. The more people have a say in a democracy, and the more they are listened to, the more likely it is that you will have a genuine democracy. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT