Page 376 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
rights of all our citizens, except children, whom we define as being people under 18. Who knows in what future time people will look back on us and say, "They thought that they had a great democracy". We have now recognised women for nearly 100 years as having the right to vote. One wonders whether, in 2000 years' time, somebody will look back at us and say, "I wonder why they did not recognise the right of children to vote", when they may define adults as 10-year-olds and above. Who knows? Certainly there is a grey area there, as I think you would recognise.
Mr Duby: Or dolphins.
MR MOORE: Mr Duby interjects, "What about dolphins?". It may well be that future generations will find a way to communicate with dolphins. No doubt, Mr Duby will start a Dolphins to Vote Party in order to get their support and get himself elected.
The question of the electoral matters, of course, comes with the major push by the Labor Party for single member electorates. Many people ask me the question, "Why not have single member electorates?". Of course, the answer to that question is really quite simple. If we had two houses in this parliament, then, in fact, there may be some very good argument for one of those houses being a house of representatives - people to represent the local area. But, in fact, that is not the case. A single house that is constituted of single member electorates would not proportionally represent the views of minorities within our community; whereas a system of proportional representation certainly does find a way to represent the views of minorities in our community. It is quite right that those views be represented, as much as we may individually agree or disagree with them.
The other question that I am often asked is, "Why not the d'Hondt system?". No doubt Mr Collaery will speak on this at some stage later in the day. We heard Mr Collaery on radio yesterday morning at one stage talking about how the d'Hondt system seemed to work quite well in France. No doubt he will speak to that later.
First of all, I think the d'Hondt system has been largely discredited in the public mind. It is also important to say that there is no such thing as a pure d'Hondt system that we all seem to hear people referring to. In nearly all its applications, the d'Hondt system has been modified in some way or another, no matter where you go in the world. Indeed, it has been modified here. Quite clearly, the modifications have not suited the Electoral Commission and, as Mr Collaery mentioned, they have not suited a number of groups in the community.
The suggestion that was made by Mr Simmons, that the d'Hondt system should be introduced without a preferential system - in other words, introducing a first past the post system - is certainly absolutely shameful. In one way or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .