Page 386 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
eighth vote at fora around this nation on issues such as the division of child-care places, initiatives taken on health, in local urban affairs, urban geography, in planning, and the division of Federal funds coming back to the States and the Territories, and the rest.
If we are going to run this by the Sovietised proposals that the Leader of the Opposition put to the University of Canberra last year that we have a committee system - and there is much to commend a committee system - we need profound constitutional change in the federal structure before we can have it. Washington has a mayor and a council and it has had that since 1973. I draw the attention of members to the excellent summation of this argument from page 23 onwards in the report of the select committee of this Assembly on self-government.
I cannot see, rationally, how we could weld local government into a situation here where we are responsible for mainstream issues that are funded out of the loan council, such as education, health and social welfare. We could really cast ourselves out of the political mainstream of this country if we go that way. There are already too many tiers of government in this country and to add an extra tier here, of local government, and then realise later that we do need to join the federal round would create further unwelcome parliamentary processes in the Territory.
Finally, a Mr Wedgwood of the Labor Party said on radio the other morning that the Residents Rally had supported pure d'Hondt. I read from page 94 of that joint parliamentary committee report where it says, at paragraph 7.6:
The Residents Rally considered that preferences within parties should be retained but thought that simpler proposals for final preference distributions would need to be identified, so as to ensure that each voter had a better than even chance to understand where their vote ends up.
The other thing about a referendum is that, although my party supports it, we have to see the atmosphere in which it could be carried out. We see the dirty tricks campaign at work already. We see a thing called Insider. That is really an insider. It is an insidious insider. The Labor Party has funds. It operates clubs and - - -
Mr Connolly: It has members too, which is - - -
MR COLLAERY: It has members; indeed it does. And it has the capacity - - -
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raise the question of relevance, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: That is overruled. Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .