Page 872 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: "Should we have two-, three- or four-year terms?". Why did he not ask about six years or eight years? Why did he not ask about one year? That poll question was clearly a fraud. In his own terms, that question was clearly a fraud. As Mr Kaine interjected before and as I think he mentioned in his speech, we could go through every question that Dennis Stevenson has ever asked and, using his own criteria, say that the polls were a fraud. He was kind enough to send me a copy of the newsletter he put out. I also received it at my home. It contains a series of questions that he has asked in his polling. Clearly, under his own criteria, his methods are fraudulent. Having recognised that, I would hope that he would now think about the issues and make his own decisions. If the people like those decisions, you will be re-elected. If they do not, you will be removed. That is how our democracy works, and that is the most effective way.
Madam Speaker, when we get to the detail stage I will deal in more depth with some of those issues and why it is that I have chosen to vote one way or the other. With the removal of the above-the-line ticket vote option, I think we have a very effective Bill with just a few minor differences of opinion. Overall, this is an effective Bill and I support it in principle.
Mr Stevenson: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.
Leave not granted.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.27), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments on the Bill. In the course of the detail stage debate there will be many more opportunities for members to make points. At the outset I want again to place on record my thanks to Mr Phil Green for the preparation of this Bill. It is, I believe, an outstanding piece of work and a massive piece of work. The fact that he has been able to achieve it with relatively few resources and in a relatively quick time, I think, is a remarkable achievement, one that he should be very proud of and one that I am certainly very pleased with.
Madam Speaker, in his remarks Mr Humphries asserted that it had taken two years to transform the referendum result into legislation. As is often the case, Mr Humphries was wrong, I am afraid. Mr Humphries apparently has forgotten or has chosen to ignore the fact that this is the second stage of a process of implementation of the referendum on the new electoral system for the ACT. The first phase involved the creation of the Electoral Commission and the drawing up of their work, which was largely to arrive at the boundaries for the electorates in the ACT. That work was successfully completed. In order for the implementation of the referendum result to be a continuous process we had deliberately chosen a two-phase process. So, Madam Speaker, I consider Mr Humphries's comments to be churlish, as usual, and quite ill-founded. I would like, Madam Speaker, to thank those members of the Assembly who took part in the consultation process that occurred in relation to this Bill.
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .