Page 378 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we have a local government. Mr Duby, previously of the No Self Government Party, and his colleagues, and Mr Stevenson of the Abolish Self Government party may not necessarily agree with Malcolm Mackerras that that was of great benefit to the Canberra community. However, that has been the case. If that was what it took to establish ACT self-government, then so be it.
The point now is that the people of the ACT have a right to choose the electoral system that they want. Mr Simmons indicated this morning that he would be prepared to introduce legislation into Federal Parliament. He just indicated that he may be prepared to introduce into the Federal Parliament the notion of allowing this Assembly to decide on electoral matters itself and for the people of the ACT and their representatives to have that power. That is a great step forward.
Prior to that occurring there ought to be a referendum. That is quite clear from a recommendation not only of a committee of this parliament on self-government but also of the Federal Parliament's own committee, which quite clearly recommended that the most appropriate way was to provide for a referendum. If the Federal Government is to take the interests of the people of the ACT into account - if they are going to attempt to provide us with a fair and equitable system - then it is quite appropriate for them also, as part of providing self-government for the ACT, to fund a referendum for the people of the ACT on this particular matter.
One has to ask what the parties are frightened of in their unwillingness to make a compromise on this issue. We hear the Labor Party paying lip-service to single member electorates. One wonders whether, all the way along, they just might want to retain d'Hondt and are happy with it. One hears the Liberal Party saying, again and again, that they are quite content to go with Hare-Clark. Clearly they are not going to accept single member electorates, and nor should they unless a referendum dictates that that is the case.
My own opinion is, and I have expressed it clearly here and in other places on a number of occasions, that the fairest system for the ACT is the Hare-Clark system with the Robson rotation, the countback, and Ian Buchanan's application. Nevertheless, I think the choice should be up to the people of the ACT. There is a divergence of view and the best way to resolve it is to allow a referendum.
It is for that reason that I have distributed a motion. At the end of this debate on a matter of public importance I will seek leave to present the motion. I just draw to the attention of members that in the third last line, at Mr Humphries' suggestion, I will now include the words "Commonwealth funded" before the word "referendum". I certainly had that intention, but at Mr Humphries' suggestion I have added those words to make it quite clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .