Page 1144 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is my contention that people who are eligible at one election but who might be based outside the ACT because they, as public servants, have been posted outside the ACT, or possibly are temporarily resident outside the ACT for other reasons, should be eligible, nonetheless, to be considered for election under the count-back. This is simply a policy question. Should such people be in the count or not? Bear in mind that electors have potentially elected these people to be members of the Assembly. Person X was the next cab off the rank, so to speak, for a seat in the Assembly. Person X misses out. Person X is a public servant, is posted to Sydney for a while, and is technically not on the electoral roll in the ACT, not being a resident in the ACT during that posting. That person is ineligible to be considered for election under the proposal that the Government has put forward. My contention is that they should be eligible because people have voted for them and a period of absence during the three-year period following their election ought not to disqualify them.
I put the case as simply as that. There is not much more to argue about than what we consider to be that person's position. I would contend that there will be such cases. From time to time they will occur, particularly because of Canberra being Canberra. I think it is appropriate to give voice to people's choice. As the person is the next person who would have been elected had some other person not been there, I think that we should try to give expression to that opinion by the electorate.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.32): Madam Speaker, in supporting my own amendment, I would like to address a few remarks that Mr Humphries has made in foreshadowing his own amendment. I am sure members understand that the difference between my amendment and Mr Humphries's is that mine defines as an eligible person somebody who is resident. Mr Humphries's does not so define it. I object to the principle on the basis that I consider that the people elected to the ACT Assembly should have a current commitment to the ACT. I feel that very strongly. I do not believe that people who are no longer resident in the ACT should be able to contest casual vacancies simply because they stood for election at some time in the past.
There is a further complication because Mr Humphries's proposed amendment goes a great deal further than simply opening up candidacy to non-residents. Under Mr Humphries's amendment, a candidate for a casual vacancy not only would not have to live in the ACT; they could in fact be in gaol for life, or be insane, or be an illegal immigrant. They could have permanently left Australia. There is a range of other very dire circumstances which, I am sure, Mr Humphries did not intend. Those are all conditions that normally would disqualify a person from enrolment. I just want to flag with members that, should the Government's amendment not succeed and Mr Humphries's amendment succeed, we will need additional amendments as a consequence.
Madam Speaker, I again commend the Government's amendment to the Assembly. I believe that living in the Territory is a fairly minimal qualification for taking up a seat in this house. If people have not made that basic commitment, you really do have to query how in touch they are with the electorate that they would seek to represent. How genuine is their commitment to serving this Territory if they do not even live here?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .