Page 538 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
During the debate on electoral systems it became very clear that the single-member electorate system is a system that suits the party and the party machines rather than having an emphasis on suiting the people. It seemed to me that, as the Liberal Party chose to go with the proportional representation system, that indicated that they had a far fairer mind as to what was fairest for the people of Canberra than did the Labor Party, which single-mindedly set about trying to take advantage of people by convincing them that the single-member electorate system would be better for them.
The single-member electorate system has many advantages when there is a two-tiered system of parliament and people have available to them both a representative and a proportional representation system, as in the House of Representatives and the Senate. When we lose one of those systems it is appropriate, and the people of Canberra have indicated clearly that it is appropriate, that we lose the single-member representative system in favour of the system of ideas, and that is what a proportional representation system is. I distinctly remember promises by both Trevor Kaine and Rosemary Follett that whatever the result of the referendum - - -
Ms Follett: I was first.
MR MOORE: The Chief Minister interjects that she was first and I certainly accept that. I will rephrase what I just said and say that I recall promises by the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that - - -
Mr Kaine: I think I said it first.
MR MOORE: I now have an interjection from the Leader of the Opposition that he said it first. I do not care who said it first, but we do have clear promises from both of those leaders that, whatever the choice of the people of the ACT was, it would be implemented. I have no doubt about that commitment and I have no doubt about the integrity of that commitment.
What I do have some concern about, and this is the reason why I have raised this matter of public importance debate today, is how that would be implemented. The "how" applies to two things. Firstly, how will it be implemented and what form will it take? Should we have a consultant? Whom should we use? Should we appoint somebody from within the government system to arrange how the system should work, or should we invite somebody like the Australian Electoral Commission? I have nominated the Australian Electoral Commission to deal with it.
Secondly - I think that in many ways this is more important - are we going to have a system implemented as people understood it when they voted at that referendum? The system, as people understood it when they voted at that referendum, was the Tasmanian system, including a fair distribution of seats - and I do not think anybody would debate that - Robson rotation and countback. I have added another point which I think many people thought would be included but was not - it was not included in anybody's commitment - and that is the removal of the use of how-to-vote cards.
Madam Speaker, I will deal first with that removal of how-to-vote cards. I separate that point because I think it is not an integral part of Hare-Clark as it is used in Tasmania, even though the lack of how-to-vote cards is part of the Tasmanian system; it is done by a separate piece of legislation, as I understand it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .