Page 1345 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the Senate Senators Margaret Reid and Bob McMullan cooperated closely. Together they twice led the notorious alliance of coalition and ALP senators against the Democrats and Senator Harradine's impressive resistance, and what resulted was the fraud of the year last year. The Liberal and ALP alliance opposed the Democrat move for a third option to the referendum question that we had in the ACT. What was the third option that the Democrats proposed? That was a single electorate with a Hare-Clark count. Was that system supported? Indeed, Professor Hughes, the ACT Electoral Commissioner, said that that would be the best system for the ACT.
What about the people of Canberra? Did they have a view on this? Indeed they did. We asked in our polls what electoral system they favoured. We acknowledge that they do not want anything to do with a State-like government; but, if they are to have something, what do they favour? Twenty-five per cent said 17 single-member electorates, 25 per cent said a Hare-Clark system and 25 per cent said a single electorate. Not only did the Federal ALP and the Liberal Party conspire to nobble the favourite; they did not even let it into the race - and this is called democracy in our nation.
The Liberal-ALP alliance also blocked the Democrat move to have a Hare-Clark count for the 1992 ACT election. They wanted to do something more sensible, but we got a modified d'Hondt system out of the ALP and the Liberal Party as they went even further - and it is hard to go further than d'Hondt - in their efforts to disadvantage small parties and Independents. It did not work totally.
What we have is the fraud of 1992. The people of Canberra have been disenfranchised. How? In the first ACT election, in 1989, and in the second ACT election, in 1992, 5.56 per cent of the vote earned a seat in this parliament. In the next election, in 1995, when the changes are made, it will require 12.5 per cent or 16.8 per cent of the vote. Surely the former Soviet Union has nothing on politicians in Australia. I could well applaud the move by Kate Carnell and the Liberals to support what they say is a municipal council, but I find it difficult to see that the reason for this switch is anything but electoral self-interest.
Who supports the abolition of this State-like parliament and its replacement with a city council? The Sydney Morning Herald, after the 1992 ACT election, editorialised that a referendum should have been held at that election on whether or not self-government should be abolished, and indeed it should have been. The Canberra Times, as we know, supports self-government - not the will of the people, not commonsense, not the constitutional law. Yet a former Canberra Times editor, Ian Mathews, late last year on the ABC spoke strongly for a municipal council. John Howard has spoken strongly against this bogus ACT Legislative Assembly and called for its removal. Ted Mack, a man that has the right to be called a representative in the House of Representatives and not just another party political hack, also came out strongly against self-government.
Our Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, talks about the sovereign city-state of Canberra, but can this be anything but a fantasy? In the national capital of a federation, sovereignty cannot exist even in a State, let alone in the ACT, because the sovereignty must be divided. The Constitution - and I pull out my pocket copy that it is always handy to have with me - says at the start:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .