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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4912 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The review will examine and report on the governance of the ACT since the commencement of self government in 1989, with respect to the operations and organisation of both the legislature and the executive.

I am saying here today that that could certainly incorporate what we asked for. I want to see a commitment from government, and will certainly be expressing this view to Philip Pettit, that serious and clear interest will be given to how we can involve people or members of the Assembly more in the workings of this place. I think it is one of the critical issues, and it is one of the things that the Greens have raised consistently. In the last election Mrs Carnell came in on a platform of council-style government. We have not really seen that in evidence. Mrs Carnell claimed today that this Assembly has matured and that more cooperative work has been occurring. I think that that is quite true and that there has been an improvement in the way some members in this place have worked, and that is useful. That is why I think there is a case for this review starting now. If this review gives members of this Assembly and the new Assembly equal opportunity to have input, then I think it would be more useful than just having members of the next Assembly making an input. Who knows who will and will not be here next time? Mr Osborne has put up substantial proposals that can be incorporated into this review. The Greens have consistently raised questions. Why not bring into this review what has been learnt by some members in this Assembly and then allow the next Assembly to have equal input so that we can come up with a report that incorporates the experiences of the old Assembly and brings in the new ideas, if there are some, of the new Assembly?

That is basically why I think that this review is worth supporting. We should not be afraid of looking at how we can improve the way we work. Participatory democracy and inclusive ways of working will bring about outcomes that will benefit the community. As leaders, we should show that we are prepared to challenge our own workings and see how we can improve them. I am therefore quite happy to support this motion, but not Mr Berry's amendment, for the reasons that I have stated, although I want to repeat that I want to see a commitment from members here that the terms of reference will include a close look at more inclusive practices and ways of working here; that there will be an opportunity for community input; and that a reasonably long time will be given in the next Assembly so the next Assembly has equal opportunity to have input.

MR WOOD (11.22): The fact is that we have a unique Assembly here. I think all of us have commented on that at some length over a period. In large degree, the nature of this Assembly was determined by the Federal Parliament about 10 years ago. More than that, there has been significant development internally over the life of three Assemblies. We would expect that development to continue in the next Assembly. This Assembly has shown that nothing stays quite the same. Mr Berry has indicated his support for another review process, but has indicated, I believe quite properly, that that should be in the hands of the next Assembly. This Assembly has one chamber. It covers both State and Territory functions, it has fixed terms and it has unique systems that have been developed over three years. No-one would argue that it is the best possible system we can have. We would never achieve that. Everybody would argue that we should look continually to improve what happens in this place. Nobody would resist that, if it were done in a proper and reasonable way.

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