The fact is that this Bill has the opposite effect. At present it is much easier for a noisy and well-organised minority to get its way by persuading a few key politicians, as we know, than it would be to persuade a majority of all voters. That is why lobby groups flourish under the current system. Direct legislation is a very effective way of taking controversial issues out of the hands of extremists, pressure groups and power elites. An alternative argument is also put, but this one asserts that minorities will suffer at the hands of the majority.
Experience also shows that the opposite is true.
For example, notwithstanding the great unpopularity of the small Communist Party in Australia in 1951, a referendum to ban it was lost. In Queensland the Government introduced daylight savings against the wishes of a minority living in rural areas, but when the question was put to a referendum most Queenslanders chose to respect the special needs of people in the country and voted against daylight saving. The cost of running a referendum is sometimes cited as the reason for denying the community the opportunity to initiate laws and vote on them. To the extent that there is some expense, it will be reduced by ensuring that most referenda are held at the same time as general elections. Another factor that will reduce cost, and in some cases eliminate it altogether, is that all referendum proposals will first be tabled in the Assembly and the Assembly can pass the law itself if it wants to, in which case no referendum will need to be held.