Page 3801 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expectation of people in Britain at present that they should be able to hear and see what their politicians, their Ministers and their shadow Ministers are saying on the floor of the house, rather than see it transcribed on a piece of footage on a TV screen or hear it relayed verbatim by a broadcaster on the radio. They expect to be able to see those things, and the question needs to be asked whether the ACT population should be in any different situation.
I want to comment on a couple of matters that were referred to in the debate by other members. Mr Moore made some reference to the number of members in the house at any given time, and perhaps the adverse inference that might be drawn from the fact that people sometimes do not appear on the floor of the house and sometimes the numbers are very small. I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my impression is that, in fact, we have a very good record in this regard. As one who has worked in the Senate, I can say that one would often be up there at other than question time and see two members in it - a member of the Opposition and a government Minister, responsible for being in the chamber, and nobody else. I would go so far as to say that, in fact, on average there are more members present in this place at any given time of day when the house is sitting than there would be in the Senate.
Mr Moore: Not even on a per capita basis?
MR HUMPHRIES: Not even on a per capita basis; on an absolute basis, even though they are four times larger than we are. So we have a fairly good record. We often will have someone, a member unnamed, calling a quorum in this place when, in fact, if they were, heaven forbid, a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives they would be hoarse from having to call quorums all the time, because it is very rarely that that place maintains a quorum, except during debates on very controversial matters, or, obviously, during divisions and question time.
The Chief Minister also made reference to the Northern Territory's extravagance. I think that was the word she used. I think that I would have to agree with her, having seen that building. I must say that I was rather awe-struck. I should note also that, in an ironic twist, it appears that the population of the Northern Territory seemed to forgive the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly very quickly, if they ever had any grudge against them, for the cost of that parliament; whereas it could be said that many members of the ACT community had considerable misgivings about the amount - approximately one-tenth of the amount spent in the Northern Territory - which we allocated to the refurbishment of this building. It is a question of horses for courses, perhaps.
I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the provision for broadcasting and telecasting of proceedings in this place is simply a provision for us to be, both in practice and in principle, open about the work that we do in this place. It is, I think, a matter of distress sometimes to see how few members of the community come into this place to see what we do. I have no doubt at all that a consequence of that poor attendance at the parliament of the Territory is that people generally are quite ignorant of what happens here and how it occurs. People, I am sure, have quite strange notions of what occurs in a parliament. My own discussions with some people who have visited this place always
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .