Page 4823 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, that was also echoed in the oral submission that Mr Humphries made before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When Mr Humphries was under questioning by Mr Lavarch, Mr Lavarch said to Mr Humphries:
In your submission you talk about two preferred models. You do not actually give a preference between the Senate system or the Hare-Clark system. Could you indicate to us now whether the Liberal Party has a preferred electoral system model for the ACT?
Mr Humphries said subsequently, "Three electorates of seven members each". Clearly, Mr Humphries has had an agenda of wanting to increase the size of the Assembly. The Government considers that any proposal to change the size of the Assembly not only should be justified on its own merits but also should be approved at referendum by a majority of voters.
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of other matters that I would like to comment on and there are some other principles that are listed in the referendum options description sheet that are not covered by the Bill. For example, there are three or four issues in the model proportional representation Hare-Clark system, set out in the 1992 referendum options description sheet, that are not covered. They include that the ACT would have 17 members elected by three electorates, with two electorates returning five members and one returning seven members. Nothing in the Bill, as it stands, would prevent a future Assembly from abolishing the three-electorate system and replacing it with the Assembly members being elected at large from one electorate. I do not know whether or not that is Mr Humphries's intention. In that description sheet there is also a prohibition on a candidate contesting more than one electorate at a general election. Again, it is not reflected in Mr Humphries's Bill. The sheet includes the requirement that boundaries of electorates shall be drawn by an independent statutory body. That is not in Mr Humphries's Bill. The sheet also includes the requirement that electoral boundaries be redrawn after every general election. Again, that is not included. I do think those matters are as fundamental as the ones on which I have foreshadowed amendments; but, again, these are issues that could have been adequately addressed, given more time.
Madam Speaker, while there are some elements of the referendum options description sheet that are not covered by this Bill, there are also some "principles" listed in this Bill that cannot be said to be intrinsic to the Hare-Clark system. These include the principles that an electorate shall return an odd number of members and that an electorate shall return no fewer than five members. Neither of those so-called "principles" of Mr Humphries's can be said to be intrinsic to Hare-Clark. Indeed, Tasmania had six-member electorates for many years. Madam Speaker, I am advised by the Electoral Commissioner that there are a number of technical difficulties with some of the "principles" listed in this Bill, to the extent that they are not consistent with the current Electoral Act. I understand that Mr Humphries will move some amendments which will address those issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .