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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4910 ..

Mr Moore: There would be no adversarial nature if you had 17 Labor members.

Mr Stefaniak: You do not help.

MR BERRY: Listen to them all being adversarial. There has been much criticism of the parliament being too adversarial. Is there something wrong with pursuing one's ideas with passion? Who is the most adversarial person in the place? She is sitting straight across the chamber from me. Set the standard in this place. This is intended to distract attention from the failure of the Government to satisfy the needs of the electorate. I understand why the Greens might say that they do not want the electoral system in. They do not want anybody to think about it. They do not want to think about the relationship between the electoral system and the economy of the ACT. They do not want any cerebral effort to go into that at all. The same applies to Michael Moore. Mr Moore is rusted onto the electoral system and does not want any intelligent reassessment of it ever, because he cannot think beyond the boundaries of it. He is locked into it. Labor, in fact, endorses the Hare-Clark system.

Mrs Carnell: You campaigned against it.

MR BERRY: Labor endorses the Hare-Clark system. It has been a decision of the people and we endorse it. We have taken some policy decisions where we think it should be simplified so that there can be more choice for the electors. There should not be the hobbles on freedom of speech which have been endorsed by incumbents in this place. These are the people who say they want an open and democratic system, but they make sure they have an electoral system that supports only incumbents. The ones who make the most noise are the ones who get elected. Mr Moore laughs across the chamber. Why is it, Mr Moore, that you are rusted onto the process where people in this place are allowed to form a party with no members, but anybody outside has to have 100 members? Funny! Do not give me any of your altruistic comments about open democracy, Michael. You are not interested in it; you are only interested in yourself. Mr Speaker, this is a stunt and always has been. If the motion is not amended along the lines of my amendment, we will not be supporting it. I move:

Omit all words after "Assembly" (first occurring), substitute the following words:

"recommends that the next Assembly instigate a joint Commonwealth/ACT Review of the Governance of the Australian Capital Territory".

MS TUCKER (11.12): This motion gives us an opportunity to raise a number of issues. I do have some concerns with the process. I support Mr Berry's concern that this review came out of the National Capital Futures Conference and was announced by the Government without full consultation. I am concerned that it came out of the National Capital Futures Conference, because even though I did participate in that conference and work with it - and I acknowledge the positives that came out of it - I did clearly state that I did not think that any resolution that came out of it should be seen as a definitive statement from the community of Canberra. I was therefore rather

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