Page 3354 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 24 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matter for some time; but when it came to looking at the amendments suggested by the Australian Democrats they became as one. Led by Senator Margaret Reid on the side of the Liberal Party and Senator Bob McMullan on the part of the Labor Party, they were unanimous in voting down the changes proposed by the Australian Democrats which would have given the ACT, for the 1992 election, a system that was agreed by just about everybody to be better than the d'Hondt system that we had. The eight Democrats and Senator Harradine stood alone at that time, fighting for a better electoral system for Canberrans.
The people who are the experts on electoral commissions in Australia, the Australian Electoral Commission, said that the best system is one where there are 17 members in a single electorate. It is interesting that the people of Canberra support this same principle. We conducted a - - -
Mr Connolly: Hang on; there was a referendum, Dennis. The people spoke.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Connolly said that the people spoke at a referendum. Indeed, they did have a vote at the February 1992 referendum. However, when one speaks one needs to be given a choice as to what words one can use. If you are limited in your freedom of choice, how can anyone suggest that that is a choice?
We conducted a survey of some 934 people and we had five questions in all. The survey was to do with the electoral system that they preferred in the ACT. Three per cent suggested that it should be left as it is - d'Hondt. Sixteen per cent were for Hare-Clark. We did not explain what Hare-Clark was at that time, and I understand that that is a concern. Sixteen per cent said yes to single-member electorates, and we explained that that was 17 different electorates. Thirty-nine per cent said yes to proportional representation, and we explained that as the 17 candidates with the highest number of direct and preference votes being elected in one electorate. Twenty-six per cent were not sure. So, at almost a 2:1 ratio the 934 people we polled in Canberra preferred proportional representation, one electorate over single-member electorates or Hare-Clark.
To allow the people of the ACT a choice between only three electorates and 17 electorates has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It has a great deal more to do with control of people and control of the options under which people can make a decision. Some might suggest that political parties mirror this; that they are a perfect example. There is absolutely no doubt - no-one here would be able to present a reasonable case against it - that the people in the ACT, if they were going to be forced into having an electoral system for the ACT and were going to be given a choice at a poll, should also have had put to them the question of having proportional representation in one electorate of 17 members. That is what most people prefer and that is what the Australian Electoral Commission recommended. However, the Federal Parliament worked to ensure that the people were not given a choice. That is not an uncommon thing, of course.
The Federal Government had a committee of inquiry which produced a report entitled "The Conduct of Elections - New Boundaries for Cooperation". Some 59 recommendations came out of that inquiry. About 50 of them referred to trying to solve problems that were caused by duplication of State and Federal electoral commissions. From a two-page list of those recommendations, let me pick out a few.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .