Page 448 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, in the very early days of the Labor Party as it was being formed, there was a democratic process for selection by the members of the party of their parliamentary candidates. This bizarre notion of self-selection in the Residents Rally has, of course, never been found in any other political party, and Mr Collaery's assertion that in some way it was found in the history of the Labor Party is simply laughable.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (10.50), in reply: Mr Speaker, I see that Mr Berry runs off as my summing up comes along, and I am not surprised because if I were him I would not be around either. A few assertions that have been made in this debate very clearly need to be put to rest. In fact, there are so many that I could not possibly cover them in the few minutes left to me.
First of all, it has been suggested that the preferential feature of the present ACT electoral system is the Hill amendment. That is wrong. I think people on that side should go and do their homework. The Hill amendment is only part of that. It was an overlay put on at the last minute to provide a fairly extreme form of preferential voting, one in which I personally do not believe. I am on record as saying, in the Liberal Party and elsewhere, that the Hill amendment should be removed, whatever happens to the d'Hondt system.
More importantly, I want to put on record that I certainly do not support the retention of the d'Hondt system. I think, in fairness, its faults have been exaggerated and much has been blamed on it which is not its fault. However, I stand wholeheartedly by the view of my party - because I was part of the process of drafting the policy - that the ACT should have a different electoral system; it should have a Hare-Clark electoral system. That is where I stand and that is where my party stands.
Mr Berry is attempting to discredit the motion put forward by me, claiming that it would secretly do something which it does not say it would do. He alleges that the real intention of the motion, particularly in part 3, is to support the present modified d'Hondt system.
Mr Jensen: A bit slow.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think he is, as Norm suggests, a bit slow because, in fact, that is not what this motion says. I will read it for his benefit. This motion says that we express:
... concern at the Federal Government's apparent intention to abolish preferential voting in the ACT ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .