Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4376 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

governments produce the most worthwhile output in a sense, is constrained by the holding of elections. After an election, for new governments there is naturally a period of settling in, working out how the land lies, getting to know its Public Service and so on. It can easily take a new government a year to work through that.

I confess, Mr Speaker, that this Government spent much of its first year very carefully assessing the situation, laying the foundations for sound policy decisions to be made and, in the case of trading hours, commissioning a number of major reports to find out what the story was. We very carefully canvassed community viewpoints. We asked for three key reports to be prepared. They are the sorts of things that governments do in the first year of their term. Although I cannot comment on the next 12 months after the end of this year, I suspect that many governments will find themselves thinking very much about the forthcoming election and tailoring their actions to the expectation that they are going to have to account for them in a more immediate sense to the electorate. It is undoubtedly true that governments tend to have some constraints at the beginning and end of their term because of the proximity of elections. You might say - I do not necessarily advance this argument - that in the ACT context, therefore, four-year terms create a doubling of the productive period of a government. That is not the only period in which they do work, but it is certainly the period in which, in a sense, they are most productive and free from election constraints.

The second reason for supporting four-year terms is that having fewer elections leads to an increase in business and investment confidence in the Territory. We had demonstrated to us very clearly during the Federal election earlier this year how much business confidence can be suspended during an election campaign and how that period of uncertainty necessarily is a problem for any economy which seeks to go forward. A reduction in the number of elections would probably be welcomed by business in the community and be seen by people, particularly those outside the Territory who seek to make investments in the Territory, as a positive sign.

The third reason for supporting elections on a four-yearly basis rather than a three-yearly basis is the saving in the costs of holding elections and conducting redistributions. Very clearly, there are problems in having to hold elections frequently. They are quite expensive commodities in the ACT context - indeed, anywhere in the country. Holding elections on a four-yearly basis provides for a considerable problem in funding those elections.

The fourth reason for supporting four-year terms is that such a move today would bring the ACT into line with the majority of other jurisdictions in this country. It is a matter of record that today only three of the nine jurisdictions in Australia continue to operate on three-year terms. Those three are the ACT, the Commonwealth and Queensland. The Commonwealth at least has made a number of attempts to go for four-year terms but has been unsuccessful. Mr Speaker, there would be some value in having a cycle of elections which is in synchronisation with those of other jurisdictions. Those are the arguments in favour of four-year terms.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .