Why doesn't Australia have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR)?

 

Why doesn't Australia have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR)?

In the US, many States have Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) which allows citizens to have the power of direct governance in things like repealing/enacting laws, recalling 'bad' politicians, etc. The citizens can garner enough signatures to (metaphorically) force these issues upon the legislatures.

Currently, Australia does not have this capability. The linked document talks of the discussions Queensland had about this issue. As the article discusses, one of the strongest arguments against CIR is that it allows the majority to force their views to the detriment of the minority. The logic is that the politicians must, at times, "make decisions which are contrary to popular prejudice".

Once again, we see that society is run by 'theory' and not by 'practice'. This may be an argument in theory, but in practice it is null and void. You only have to look at the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate for a clear indication that this fear is completely unfounded, and actually shows the complete opposite of their argument. The gay/trans community is estimated to be 5% of society. The politicians cowardly refused to enact SSM due to the power and favours-owed to the religious organisations. It took a national referendum for this 5% minority to gain the simple freedoms given to everyone else. A CIR would have been the perfect avenue for this issue.

Another example of the positivity of CIRs is the war on drugs. The efforts and success of regulating cannabis in the US came from CIRs, initially Colorado, which legalised cannabis in 2016, creating considerable tax revenue, reduced the consumption of alcohol and opiates,  and other benefits such as a place where long-suffering kids with epilepsy could get treatment. 13% of people within Colorado consume cannabis so it is a clear minority.

So I fail to see where the politicians have created legislation to the detriment of the majority. Today's politicians rarely exhibit this type of 'courage' since it would be harmful to their reelection prospects. CIRs would allow for long-term changes in society as opposed to the current short-term 3 year cycle of electing politicians.

And the minority does have the ability to act using CIRs. In most US States, the threshold to start the CIR process in only usually somewhere between 2 and 10%. So 2% of the citizens can start a CIR process, and as exposure to the issue increases, many citizens may 'jump onboard' that issue. I would think that if Australia had CIRs, the issue of doctor-assisted suicide, which would affect a tiny minority of citizens would be an issue that would garner tremendous support as it moved through the CIR process.

But any process that allows for a more aware and energised populace cannot be a negative thing to society. Perhaps we should have a CIR to allow CIRs in Australia?

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/explore/ResearchPublications/researchBulletins/rb0198hg.pdf