Page 388 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
communities of interest - something we have heard about before. Each voter, of course, has the right to choose a person who they believe will best represent them - something again which I think this community holds dear.
Of course, voters can exercise a clear choice between government and opposition candidates, whether they are from opposition parties or are independents, or whatever. They are able to exercise a clear choice in that regard. Finally, of course, voters are quite able, if they wish, to dismiss a member whom they do not regard as adequately representing their interests. I put that case again. I believe that it is by far the best process available to the ACT. It is to my very great regret that it does not seem possible to implement it at the moment.
One of the few interesting points in going through this entire debate again is to expose the backflips from the people opposite. Yesterday morning we heard from the Leader of the Residents Rally one of the most incredible loops of argument in relation to the d'Hondt system that I think I have ever heard. Mr Collaery, first of all, was complaining that he had not been consulted on what the proposal before the Federal Parliament is. Indeed, I do not believe that any of us have seen the legislation; so, perhaps, his complaint is justified, except that it is well known that what is before the Federal Parliament is a version of the d'Hondt system without the modifications that we had at the last election.
In his initial comments to Mr Matt Abraham on 2CN yesterday, Mr Collaery said, "I think the local Liberals understand all too clearly that, with any d'Hondt gerrymander that is being proposed by the Federal Labor Government, out will go the Liberal chances of being back in government". Mr Collaery refers to the current proposal as a gerrymander. This is very much at variance with the Residents Rally view which was put previously and very strongly to the Federal Parliament's joint standing committee of inquiry into the ACT election and election system.
At that time, Mr Collaery, Mr Jensen and Mr Donohue argued vehemently for the retention of the d'Hondt system. Mr Jensen said at that time, in an answer to a question from the chairman:
The preference at the moment, as indicated in the document, is that we would prefer to give the d'Hondt system another go, with some of the wrinkles removed from it to make it a little fairer and just to give it another chance. I do not think it is fair at this stage completely to throw it out of the window just because of some of the problems with it.
That is what Mr Jensen said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .