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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4916 ..

Mr Berry: Well, why did you not ask me?

MR MOORE: You ask again: Why did I not ask you? I just explained. My experience has taught me that you would go about finding a way to wreck any idea. That has been my experience since you have become Leader of the Opposition, because that is the way you perceive opposition. The fortunate part is that that is not the general view of members of your party. But this was an area for which you had responsibility.

I would like to make a couple of comments on why the electoral system ought to be left out of the consideration of this report. We have to set a certain basis for it. The basis that we already have is the Hare-Clark electoral system. It has been to a referendum. It has been supported by a two-thirds majority of people for its establishment and also its entrenching. That means that we have a very good basis upon which to start. I would say to you and I would also say to Professor Pettit that, as the electoral system has been entrenched, that should remain the basis. The issue you raised, which I think is the issue of how-to-vote cards, I do not see as being part of - - -

Mr Berry: No - - -

MR MOORE: You did raise that issue as part of - - -

Mr Berry: No; it is not the only issue.

MR MOORE: I realise that you think it is not the only issue; but you did raise the issue of how-to-vote cards. We will deal with that later. It seems to me that that is an issue that should be up for grabs. I do not think that is excluded when we say that we exclude Hare-Clark as entrenched. You also say, "We should include the electoral system". If we were to include the electoral system now, it would mean a huge amount of extra work and work that we ought not be doing. (Extension of time granted) That electoral system forms a basis for what happens here and what happens in government. To go and reconsider that now, when it has been operating for such a short time, would be a ridiculous waste of time and effort. That has to be considered as taken, in so far as it is entrenched.

I have no problem with modifications to the electoral system, as have been made in here, including how-to-vote cards, being presented to the inquiry to look at. They will not change the fundamentals of what happens. It seems to me that what we should have is those parameters. There is no point in getting into a debate here on how-to-vote cards because we have already had the debate. We know why we have differences of opinion. Those differences of opinion are, largely, you would argue, about free speech. We would argue that what you are really trying to do is entrench the power of the parties.

I will just add one more comment. You did say that the system favours incumbents. Indeed, if you look, as I did, at how it operated in Tasmania you would find that just the opposite is true. The only systems that really favour incumbents are those where a party appoints its people to key positions and safe seats to protect its favoured sons. Mostly it is favoured sons; occasionally it is favoured daughters. But almost invariably it is favoured sons. That is the experience of single-member electorates around Australia. But that is a debate for another day.

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