The undermentioned is a response to the above titled paper which I understand was written about 10 years ago. I have only included the headings of each issue with the appropriate response.

1. CIR MAY RESULT IN POORLY DRAFTED, POORLY DEFINED AMBIGUOUS LEGISLATION

   Response

   The author states that CIR MAY result in the above, however what it does not acknowledge is that it MAY result in better written, more concise Bills which can be understood by ordinary citizens, and not clouded in legalese.

   CIR Australia proposes that the ballot proposal be overseen by the electoral commission who will request the Parliamentary Council to prepare a brief outline of the legislative measure. The Council will consult with such persons as they see fit including the representatives of the petition.

   People will be fully informed as the government must then put out a paper representing both the "for" and "against" argument to enable people to make an informed decision on a measure which will impact on them.

2. THERE IS A DANGER OF "LOGROLLING" – THE PRACTICE OF GROUPING POPULAR PROPOSALS FOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGE WITH OTHER UNPOPULAR, CONTENTIOUS OR COMPLICATED ISSUES. THIS CAN BE A DELIBERATE PLOY SO THAT, PRESENTED AS A WHOLE, THE UNPOPULAR ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL MAY BE CARRIED

   Response

   This is precisely what governments do now to enable an unpopular piece of legislation to sneak through. CIR Australia proposes that each proposal will stand completely alone, and no other issue or proposal will be incorporated.

   This will keep the process honest and eliminates governments, politicians or vested interests groups using the logrolling process for their benefit.

    

3. PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS ENOUGH OBJECTIVE, UNDERSTANDABLE INFORMATION ON AN ISSUE

   Response

   This is exactly what our politicians do at the present time and availability of information is becoming more difficult. Governments make promises known as "non core", keep information from people concerning vital matters and manipulate the media. CIR will enable both sides to present their case and if people do not have enough interest to vote on an important issue, then they will have to live with the result. CIR should improve participation by citizens.

4. A BARE MAJORITY MAY BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPOSING THEIR BELIEFS ON SIGNIFICANT MINORITIES – THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY

   Response

   This assumes that people are not sensible or intelligent enough to vote on matters that impact on themselves and others. On the other hand, politicians are voted in with extremely small majorities and impose their beliefs and biases. Basic rights will be respected but why should minorities, which is happening at present in Australia, impose their beliefs on the majority.

5. THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF REFERENDA

   Response

   So what, surely every citizen should have the right to initiate a referendum on any issue that may concern them. However, they need to get sufficient support to have the question put to referendum, and this will not be easy to do if the matter is frivolous or has little community concern.

6. PEOPLE MAY BE COMPULSORILY OBLIGATED TO VOTE IN AN ONGOING NUMBER OF BALLOTS ON ISSUES THAT ARE OF NO INTEREST TO THEM

   Response

    

   1. Either have voluntary voting
   2. People do not need to vote, just turn up and cross your name off
   3. Referendum can be held at election time or one day a year, so the number of ballots is restricted.

    

7. THE CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS

   Response

   The current system does NOT work and is the reason why there are so many disillusioned people in the community. Citizens feel ignored and not listened to, unless it is in the interest of the political parties.

   Party politics dominate in Australia and people do not vote for someone to represent them, but someone who is nominated by a party. Ultimately if elected, they have to take the party line even against the wishes of their constituents.

   CIR would enable people to have a real say on issues that affect them and parties will be held accountable.

8. THOSE WHO SPEND THE MOST WIN

   Response

   This is totally incorrect as has been constantly discovered in polls in the USA. People are not entirely stupid, and when they see big money being poured into a campaign, generally question as to the reason. It has been consistently shown that people with small budgets and an important issue will succeed against big money.

   The alternative is to cap expenditure on both sides.

9. CIR IS BIASED AGAINST MANY ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS

   Response

    

   1. Define ordinary Australians.
   2. CIR will give ordinary Australians the opportunity to talk at the ballot box on a particular issue, rather than accept a bucket load of promises from politicians with no intention of honouring them if elected.

    

10. CIR IS EXPENSIVE

    Response

    It is estimated in South Australia that a CIR would cost about $6m, say $10m. With 1 million registered electors this equates to $10 per person which is less than the cost of a packet of cigarettes. Governments waste tens of millions of dollars on stupid pet projects, and no one has the ability to stop or question them under the present system.

    Is $10 a year too much to pay for better government.

     

11. CIR CAN BE A VEHICLE TO PROMOTE HATRED, DIVISIVENESS – PREJUDICE

    Response

    Radical groups such as feminists, gays etc have been pushing their agendas for many years and weak kneed politicians have caved into their demands.

    With CIR these groups and others will have a chance to demonstrate support, and if able put it up as a referendum question for all people to vote.

    Why shouldn’t they test the electorate and let people decide.

12. CIR IS SOCIALLY DIVISIVE