Page 3355 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 24 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One was to reduce the dispersion of infrastructure. That created problems. They made recommendations to try to solve that. No. 9 in this list talks of commissions handling each other's inquiries. No. 14 suggests that commissions should exchange information about non-voters. No. 22 suggests that the Australian Electoral Commission could provide staff to act as State returning officers. No. 25 talks of State and Federal staff being encouraged to work for other commissions as well. No. 30 talks about commissions using one computer system for staff pays. I could go on and on. The inquiry reported on how you can handle the problem of duplication. If you are going to have separate electoral commissions for the States and a separate Federal Electoral Commission, what can you do to minimise wastage of money? What can you do to minimise duplicating functions? The joint standing committee certainly gave a very good understanding of what you can do.
It has been suggested that the system we have in the ACT is an excellent one. Let me read a letter which appeared in the Canberra Times on 5 October 1992 by Arch Bevis, the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It spoke of Crispin Hull's article headed "ACT not yet out of morass of electoral uncertainty" which appeared in the Canberra Times on 22 September, at page 9. Mr Bevis wrote that this article "offers a useful analysis of the electoral options available to the ACT Legislative Assembly, and the pitfalls inherent in those options". He continued:
However, the last section of the article is misleading. In speculating on whether the ACT needs a separate electoral commission, Mr Hull notes that this committee recommended the continuation of state and territory (electoral) bodies. The article could lead one to infer that the committee supports the establishment of a separate commission for the ACT.
Any such inference would be incorrect. The committee regards elections for the ACT Legislative Assembly as a matter for the people of the ACT and their representatives. It made no recommendations directly or indirectly regarding their administration.
The committee's support for the continuation of state electoral bodies was more a recognition of realpolitic than a recommendation. It accepted that "there was insufficient support for a single electoral body to make it a feasible option in the current political environment".
At the same time the committee acknowledged that the existence of separate electoral administrations is costly and inconvenient for the public. Its report focused on how the separate administrations could cooperate to offer a better and more cost-effective service to the voting public. The report does contain information that is relevant to the ACT Assembly and government as it considers the best way of conducting electoral events, but it does not imply that a separate electoral commission is the best way.
I do not believe that a separate electoral commission is the best way. I think that in the home of the Australian Electoral Commission, right here in our backyard in Canberra, it would be a far better idea, if we are going to conduct elections in the ACT, to have them conducted by the experts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .