REFERENDUMS NOT THE WAY TO SET POLICY

THE ACT Liberal Party is toying with the idea of conducting a referendum
at the election on October 20. 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 the form of referendums. Calls for referendums are quite
frequent among the contributors to Letters to the Editor columns, for
example. Referendums are used 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 they are ruled. Referendums also, perhaps, have a place as a
citizens' veto once laws are passed.

The trouble with submitting specific policy matters to a 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.

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 a question in detail. Indeed, that
propensity is so high that any government wanting to put an issue
permanently into the too-hard basket would submit it to a referendum.
The other difficulty with government by referendum is that it invites a
knee-jerk reaction by voters that 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 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 on 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 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.