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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1059 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This motion is about starting up a process to expand the number of members in the Assembly. The Greens do not believe that this Assembly can continue ad infinitum with its current number of 17 members, a number set before self-government in 1989, regardless of the population changes that have occurred in Canberra since this time and the growing experience of problems that have arisen in the Assembly due to the relatively small number of members. Members here need to bite the bullet and start to examine the issue of the appropriate size of the Assembly to ensure the good governance of the Territory, even though this move may be unpopular with some people in the community who have a negative attitude towards politicians.

The Pettit review of the governance of the ACT was quite clear in its opinion that the Territory was underrepresented relative to the other States. It pointed out that in 1996 the ratio of the ACT population to the number of representatives was about 1 to 14,500 when the average ratio in Australia was 1 to 2,250 - in fact, over six times higher than average. More striking was the comparison with other small jurisdictions. The ACT ratio is 10 times higher than the ratio in Tasmania and over 50 times higher than that of the Northern Territory.

Of course, having more politicians does not necessarily imply that a place is better governed, but there are some specific areas where the number of members is an issue. A larger Assembly allows a more diverse range of members to be elected, including from currently underrepresented sectors of the community like women, and thus greater scope for constituents to find a member who may be able to assist them in a particular matter. There is likely to be a greater talent pool of members from the government side from which Ministers can be selected. It would also provide a greater number of backbenchers and non-government members to participate in the Assembly committees, thus making them more effective and spreading the workload.

Of course, there is no objective measure of the ideal number of representatives. Indeed, the current number of 17 was an arbitrary number. The Pettit review however concluded that a ratio of one member per 10,000 electors was a reasonable figure, which would maintain the original ratio when self-government started in 1989. Even with this increase, the ACT would still have a higher ratio than the Australian average.

The Pettit review was referred to a select committee, where a majority of the committee took the view that the arguments against an increase outweighed the arguments in support. I obviously do not agree with this view. Concerns were raised about the additional cost, with an estimate that four extra parliamentarians would cost $3m over a three-year term. However, given that the Government can find many more millions of dollars at the drop of a hat to support airlines or V8 car races, then I do not think this extra expense is a problem, and indeed it could be seen as a good investment.

The view was also expressed that the ACT is more compact and homogenous than other States and therefore the current number of members is more accessible. However, I think this view confuses physical accessibility with accessibility to a member who will be sympathetic to one's concerns.

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