Page 4677 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
more preferable if all the problems associated with that had been overcome earlier and if the referendum had been held at the end of last year, so that we would know what our permanent system is the second time around.
I think it is somewhat ludicrous that we have to go through the same modified d'Hondt system for another three years and then, in 1995, end up with what probably will be our permanent system. That, to me, really is quite crazy. I think the delays that were caused are not something that anyone in Federal Parliament can necessarily be proud of. Because under the self-government Act Federal Parliament still has power to decide, the decision should have been made promptly in 1990. I agree that it should have been done by referendum.
We should be going into the 1992 election knowing that we have either single-member electorates or the Hare-Clark system. Those are probably the two most appropriate systems for the ACT out of all possible systems. I would say, however, that, if you do want 17 or whatever number of members to represent Canberra at large, the Senate electoral system is the fairest one that you can have. I think it is better than the modified d'Hondt system, despite the various amendments that have been made to make that fair.
When one talks about this matter, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I suppose it is quite relevant to look at reality and what exactly people will be voting for in February 1992 in terms of systems. On the one hand, single-member electorates are common in lower houses throughout Australia. It is interesting to note that most Australian parliaments have upper houses which are elected by some form of proportional representation on a Senate type of system or indeed one that is perhaps more akin to the Hare-Clark system. I think it is relevant in this debate to look at those two systems.
Canberra is an interesting place in that it is difficult to divide it into 17 distinct demographic areas. It is a city-State. I think single-member electorates might be more relevant if the ACT included large rural areas and perhaps took in most of south-eastern New South Wales; there would be a lot more force then for single-member electorates. As I asked David Wedgwood, one of your colleagues and also a Labor candidate in the forthcoming election, at the debate at the university several weeks ago: What would be the difference between the electorates of Stromlo and Arawang? Stromlo would include Duffy, Holder, Rivett, Stirling and Chapman and Arawang would include Waramanga, Weston, Lyons and Curtin. What is the difference between Weston and Waramanga, for example, and Stirling, Duffy and Holder?
Canberra does have some distinct demographic entities and features. They are based around the town centre concept. We have inner Canberra, the north and south sides; we have Belconnen; we will eventually have Gungahlin; and we have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .