Page 437 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
modified seven times around. I think everyone does not want to see that again. Mr Humphries' motion certainly has the support of everyone. However, I think the motives of the Labor Party become quite clear - - -
Mr Berry: Are you voting with us?
MR STEFANIAK: No. The motives of the Labor Party, Wayne, become quite clear when we look at your amendments to paragraphs (2) and (3). You do not want the Federal Government to initiate any action to repatriate this power until after the 1992 ACT elections. That is for the very obvious reason which you clearly express in your new paragraph (3), which is expressing regret that that Government has been unable to provide single member electorates in that system for the ACT.
Quite clearly, you seem to believe that you are going to win the 1992 ACT election. You are quite happy with paragraph (1) of the motion because that would then give a Labor government here in 1992 the power to impose upon the ACT single member electorates, which simply would not be on. It would probably be one of the most unfair systems you could foist on the people of the ACT. You obviously hope to perpetuate yourselves in power into the twenty-first century. I am sure that that is the motive behind this motion. Talk about self-seeking!
Mr Humphries, unlike Mr Berry, is not pushing the current system. That is why he moved his amendment; that is why he deleted the last four words, "in the existing legislation", to make it quite clear that he is not supporting the current system. His motion says nothing about modified d'Hondt. It is perfectly possible, under Mr Humphries' motion, for the Federal Government to accept a Hare-Clark system; to accept, in fact, even the system that Mr Stevenson mentioned, which was a very simple preferential system probably based more or less on the Senate system, with 17 members in one electorate. Therefore, it could be 17 members in one electorate. It could be Hare-Clark. It could be 17 straight members in one electorate. Either way, they are quite fair systems, and equally consistent with Mr Humphries' motion.
We have seen in other States and, perhaps, other countries what happens when you do have single member electorates in a fairly small place. I want to deal with that. I am sure that the Labor Party is not terribly happy in the Northern Territory because single member electorates have ensured that the Country-Liberal Party have remained in power since its inception. Obviously, if this lot got into power for 10 years straight or more, the people of the ACT would have a lot to fear, particularly if Labor won all 17 of the single member electorates or a vast proportion of them. That is certainly not healthy democracy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .