Page 82 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I strongly endorse comments made by others in this place that a referendum is the appropriate mechanism for deciding what system we have here in Canberra. The response goes on to say:
Any subsequent proposed changes to the electoral system of a substantial nature would be referred back to the people for approval by referendum.
In other words, the Government would maintain that system of referral to the electorate. Changes of a minor technical nature to the electoral system would require the agreement of a special majority of Assembly members. Ms Follett said that she agreed with comments on Government responses to the electoral system proposals. I did not hear whether she agreed to that particular proposal, but I would certainly urge the Australian Labor Party to seriously consider devices to protect against random changes to the electoral system based purely on the whim of a particular government which had a simple majority of the Assembly at any given time. That would not be in the best interests of ACT democracy.
We have seen much bigger places than the ACT succumb to serious rorting of electoral systems. That is not a desirable thing to happen in the ACT. We can and we should have systems in the ACT which are fair. I would hope that we would always be above the sort of thing that has happened in Queensland, Western Australia and elsewhere, and I sincerely hope that entrenchment of electoral systems in this fashion, as recommended by the Chief Minister, is acceptable to all parties. The temptation to play politics with electoral systems is a powerful one. There are already signs that it affects parties in this place, and I hope that we do not give in to that.
Recommendation 11 of the report indicates that if we retain the d'Hondt electoral system we should revert to a pure d'Hondt system. The Government's response to that suggests that this is really academic, since the ACT should have responsibility transferred to it. However, I might indicate for the record that I think that is a stupid idea, and that the pure d'Hondt system is not an appropriate alternative to the present d'Hondt system.
Finally, I would like to comment on the question of an administrator for the ACT. Although it is not really part of this report, it was raised by Ms Follett. It has not been discussed by the Government, and I do not know whether it is planned to be discussed by the Government; but certainly, in my view, there is a great deal of merit in the argument for an administrator for the ACT. For example, as a Minister in this Government I was in office for close to a year before I happened to meet, at a social occasion, His Excellency the Governor-General. That is not an indication that I felt snubbed, but rather an indication of some concern that the person to whom, in one legal sense, I and other Ministers are responsible for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .