Page 980 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also place on the record, as did Mr Moore, that I support four-year terms. I think a parliament with four-year terms is better able to deal with the issues and problems which face jurisdictions. I think it is increasingly clear to people in this day and age that many solutions to our economic problems, in particular, are solutions which cannot be found overnight. They must be the product of long-term policies, and long-term policies are harder to put in place and to maintain when the terms of the parliament are shorter.
Having said that, there is an important distinction between the substance of the decision and the form of the decision. The decision we make here must clearly be one that is made on the basis of a mandate to do so. The length of the period for which people are elected is a fundamentally important part of the democratic process, and for parliament to extend that term without that reference or without that mandate is not appropriate. Ms Follett referred to the fact that all jurisdictions bar Queensland had adopted four-year terms. I might note that some of those jurisdictions had had referenda on the subject and, on at least two occasions that I can recall, four-year terms were rejected.
Mr Connolly: Federally. The Liberal Party always say, "Yes, we support it", but whenever Labor tries to do something about it they say, "No, no; we do not want it".
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Connolly is a little bit on edge. It must be that new health portfolio he has. Madam Speaker, the Federal Liberal Party, as I recall, has always supported four-year terms at the Federal level. I believe that we have also supported them in State elections as well. I think it was a New South Wales Liberal government that supported the first referendum on four-year terms in that State. I would be open to correction on that. The people of Queensland do not have a four-year term because it was rejected by referendum in that State, and that is appropriate. If the people of Queensland say no, they should not have four-year terms. Similarly, we should have some way of asking the people of this Territory what they think.
Perhaps the litmus test will be whether the parties that contest the next ACT election care to make it very clear that they would support four-year terms if elected to office. Despite having put this amendment forward, it is not clear to me whether the Labor Party intends to do that. Ms Follett does not appear to be sure about that either. I do not know what our party will do, but I think we need to have the courage of our convictions before we take any steps of this kind in this place. I think Mr Stevenson's poll on four-year terms is probably right. I suspect that most people, at least at first blush, are not in favour of extending the terms of parliament; but, as I think the Hare-Clark campaign demonstrated, people can be persuaded sometimes that decisions which you make at first blush are decisions which will change on the basis of reflective consideration. I am not pessimistic about the chances of persuading the electors of the ACT that four-year terms would be a good idea for their Assembly.
I have to say that I share some of the reservations Mr Moore has expressed about Mr Stevenson's polling process. I think there is a question of sampling bias. Mr Stevenson has often expressed his view that the results of his polling suggest that people in the ACT wanted another option at the referendum of 1992. I have asked him on many occasions to supply me with details of that, and he has not yet done so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .