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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4378 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there are fairly complex arguments both for and against this particular proposal. I am very much looking forward to seeing what the debate produces on this issue and what arguments are advanced in favour of this proposal. I certainly note Mr Moore's comments in advancing this legislation. I think that he made some very telling points, and I look forward to seeing what other members in the chamber have to advance in favour of this proposal.

MS HORODNY (12.16): Mr Speaker, there are two aspects of this Bill that need to be highlighted. One is the proposal to change the fixed date of the election to the fourth Saturday in October rather than the third Saturday in February, and the other is to change the term of the Assembly to four years. On the first point, we support changing the election day to October. We agree with Mr Moore that this is a more logical time for an election. While we note that a February election occurs at a time of year when there is ordinarily a lull in government activity, the February election day has the problem that the election campaign tends to be crammed in after the Christmas and new year break. Many Canberrans are still holidaying then and may be away during that critical period. This means that Canberrans are not necessarily as focused on the election as they could be and the candidates and their election platforms are not given the public scrutiny that they deserve.

We also note that an October election day has implications for the release of the budget in that year. The budget will need to be brought down earlier than at present so that it can be out of the way before the election campaign. We do not have a problem with this, as generally we think that the budget is better released as close as possible to, or even before, the start of the financial year. This timing may be good, as the budget will then most likely form a focus for the subsequent election campaign.

We note the argument that four-year terms could lead to less accountability of politicians, but we think that this argument is outweighed by the advantages that four-year terms could bring to the ability of governments to implement their policies in a more considered and more strategic way. Our observation of the political process under three-year terms is that the Government spends the first year getting used to the job and preparing for implementation of its election promises, spends the second year delivering on those promises or at least some of those promises, and spends the last year in a defensive mode in preparation for the next election. The Greens have always been concerned that the long-term implications of a whole range of issues and the need often to take a longer-term approach to the management of those issues have been regularly sidelined because of the Government's three-year time horizon. The move to four-year terms will provide at least some incentive for governments to address issues in a more comprehensive manner than currently occurs under three-year terms.

It could be argued that there may be slightly less democratic accountability with a four-year term than a three-year term because the public has less opportunity of voting politicians in or out; but, as Mr Humphries has already said, the Hare-Clark voting system provides a very good balance to this. Given our proportional voting system, it is highly likely that politicians from a range of political persuasions will be regularly elected and that minority governments will be commonplace in the ACT. This situation provides for

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