Page 425 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Duby: It is the growing trend.
MR BERRY: Mr Duby says that it is the growing trend. I do not think he should look forward to it growing any more beyond February next year. Independent of promises? Of course, when it comes down to it, they are independent of any organisation now. Because they have been sacked we cannot have them interfering in the processes, and - - -
Mr Kaine: Are you going to move your amendment before you sit down?
MR BERRY: I have already done that. They are independent of any constituency. So, they are all of the issues that need to be thought about in the course of this debate.
Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the Labor Party will support some of the principles enunciated in the motion moved by Mr Humphries; but the amendment that I have moved seeks to place in the second paragraph the words, "after the 1992 ACT election", because then we would have a government which is more representative of the will of the people, not a bunch of people who have deserted their former policies, their former parties, their former morals, and so on and so forth. What we need is a party which has the endorsement of the people of the ACT, not a group of people who do not really represent anything in the Territory. They certainly do not have any mandate, as has been argued in past debates. The Labor Party, on the other hand, has acted in accordance with its mandate.
I have also moved that we replace the third paragraph in the motion moved by Mr Humphries with more appropriate words as follows:
Expresses its regret that the Commonwealth Government has been unable to provide for a system of single Member electorates incorporating preferential voting.
What that means, of course, is that we would end up with a system of government in the ACT which would give proper representative government; but, importantly, it is an indication that the Labor Party is supportive of preferential voting. What Mr Humphries argues in his paragraph (3) is that there is some apparent intention of the Government to abolish preferential voting. Well, they are not abolishing preferential voting. It has been suggested that the pure d'Hondt system might be an outcome. That is a preferential voting system of a type.
What is most interesting about this - I wonder whether he would do this in the referendum which he so warmly supported earlier - is that Mr Humphries is arguing, it seems, for the retention of the Hill amendment and a voting system which incorporates those sorts of amendments which led to all of the criticism about the last election in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .