Page 866 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is the system Canberrans want and expect the members of this Assembly to implement. Proportional representation systems can be grouped into two broad categories - list systems and the single transferable vote, or STV, system. The Hare-Clark system is an STV system, while the d'Hondt system is a list system, and I am sure that I do not need to canvass the relative merits of the two.
The Government's grafting of above-the-line voting onto the Hare-Clark system is essentially imposing a list system on top of an STV system. The two are philosophically incompatible, and such a hybrid system could not be expected to work well. After the tabling of the Bill, I made my views on above-the-line voting widely known. Together with Mr Moore, I made a particular point of making these views known to the Chief Minister. My position was simply that above-the-line voting was not acceptable; I was not prepared to negotiate over other matters contained in the Bill until above-the-line voting was withdrawn; and I expressed a lack of confidence in Rosemary Follett as Chief Minister due to her position on this issue.
Contrary to reports at the time, there was never an intention to withdraw support from the Government, only from the Chief Minister herself. I am gratified to see the Government's amendments to the Bill withdrawing the above-the-line voting provisions. As I have said before, Canberrans expect their new electoral system to reflect their choice at the referendum: The Hare-Clark system as described in the Electoral Commission's referendum booklet and as practised in Tasmania.
The Tasmanian electoral system has evolved over the years to the system in operation today. Indeed, Tasmanians have done good work in ironing out the wrinkles, and we in the ACT can benefit from their efforts. The Tasmanian experience does suggest one area of improvement, and that is the need to entrench the key provisions of Hare-Clark. In Tasmania the Hare-Clark system has come and gone at the whim of the government of the day. This is a part of the Tasmanian experience we do not need to repeat. I therefore support in principle the entrenchment of the key concepts of the Hare-Clark system.
There is clearly no need to try to reinvent the system itself. Needless add-ons such as the use of how-to-vote cards and above-the-line voting are nothing more than a denial of the Tasmanian experience. Tasmanians regularly use the Hare-Clark system effectively to elect their Assembly. In the 1992 elections the Tasmanian informal vote was under 5 per cent, while that in the ACT under modified d'Hondt approached 8 per cent. I am sure that the ACT electorate, which is one of the best informed in Australia, will cast a much higher percentage of formal votes at the 1995 election using the Hare-Clark system. There is no need to tinker with the Hare-Clark system to make this happen; we should expect it as a matter of course.
My position is straightforward, Madam Speaker. It is that stated in recommendation 8 of the working party on the report on the implementation of the Hare-Clark electoral system chaired by Mr Humphries. This recommendation states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .