Page 1298 - Week 05 - Thursday, 26 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Our questioning revealed that the suggestion that more staff could not have been employed because of the need for training was contradicted by later evidence that the staff had to be almost retrained following the completion of a particular stage in the count. The committee felt that the commission had had sufficient time to ensure that sufficient trained people were available.
We also considered various proposals for change to the system of electing members of the Assembly. These discussions centred around the number of electorates, ranging from a single electorate to various sizes of multimember electorates, and from a combination of these two to single member electorates. I do not propose to go over these arguments here today. Suffice to say that, while all the systems could have been applied within the ACT, some were considered more equal than others and arguments were mounted to suggest that each proposal was the best thing for the ACT since sliced bread.
However, the majority of the committee concluded that if we had to make a choice in order of preference we would suggest three of them in the following order: a single electorate with a simplified d'Hondt system which provided for independents and distribution of preferences; three multimember electorates using the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system, with provision for Robson rotation in the filling of casual vacancies by count-back; and single member electorates.
We were aware that the joint parliamentary committee had recommended that the people of the ACT be given an opportunity to resolve the issue by referendum and that the current Federal Labor Government was committed to having that take place as soon as possible. Our committee did not oppose such a course being taken. However, the majority of us considered that, provided the d'Hondt system could be made to include provision for independents and distribution of preferences, it should also be included in the options put to the people.
It is probably appropriate at this stage to mention the fact that the committee was disappointed that the Electoral Commission representatives were not prepared to discuss with the committee any possibility that modifications could be made to the d'Hondt system to make it more equitable. However, whatever went to the people in a referendum, it would be important to ensure that the voters of the ACT were very clear as to what they were voting for. Failure to ensure that this was the case could only result in an unsatisfactory result which would add further fuel to the fire of dissatisfaction with the voting system. (Extension of time granted)
On the option for the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system, the committee was of the view that, if this system were selected, the three multimember electorates proposed should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .