Referendum fears

In response to John Duck's letter, (Gaz 13/6), I started my letter the previous week by stating that local government was out of control. If John and others read the Herald-Sun they would have seen an article by columnist Rita Panahi that was headed just that: "Local government is out of control".

As for definition of words, and pronunciation, listen to the ABC. We now have 'vunerable'; 'Magistrit'; 'Queenslund'; 'Cambra'; 'Docklunds' and numerous others. But the word 'marriage' has been around for thousands of years, its pronunciation and meaning are precise. Is that quibbling John?

As for the denial of free speech and democracy, Alan Joyce was subjected to that and the treatment meted out to Margaret Court was infinitely worse.

Plebescite and referendum, yes I know the difference John. But do you? A plebiscite is merely an indication of opinion, leaving Parliament to do as it will. In other words, a wasted effort.

A referendum however is a clear direction to the Parliament that it must do the will of the people. Examples were to recognise the Aboriginal people and to reject the republic, even though politicians and media were mostly in favour of the republic.

We see the same now with 'marriage equality'. Referendum is true democracy which is why they are very common in Switzerland, perhaps the best governed country in the world.

In Australia we have compulsory voting, one of the few countries that do.

The fact that Ireland voted at a referendum in favour of 'marriage equality' is no consolation to the 'pro' lobby. Only two thirds of the Irish bothered to vote and the referendum passed with a bare majority. All Ireland in favour? Clearly, no.

The pro lobby in this case fears a referendum, which would be a true exercise of democracy. A plebiscite would be a waste of time. But in either case the answer would be a resounding 'no' vote. Don McLean, Bunyip