Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3438 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
Mr Speaker, I have to say that I would be very comfortable about calling on the government to do so quickly so that we can deliver 21 members after the next election. I would be very comfortable about that, remembering that it would not affect my electoral prospects one way or the other, because we are talking about a seven-member seat being the likely outcome and I am already in a seven-member seat.
Mr Quinlan: However, it would decrease in size, Michael, and the quotient would decrease.
MR MOORE: If it decreased in size, that probably would make it worse for me rather than better. I think that it would have no impact on me at all. However, I have to say that it probably would have some impact on other parties. For that reason, it may be appropriate for us to apply it to the election after the next one. It does not worry me; I think that it should be done immediately. But Ms Tucker's motion really sets it up for the following election and I am happy to accept that.
Mr Speaker, this proposal is fairly straightforward. The motion as it stands should be supported. It is a very sensible motion and the process is an appropriate process. There is no need for further consultation. If we are to have further consultation, I would suggest to Ms Tucker that we ought to seek the power from the Commonwealth to do so and then allow the consultation process to occur after the power is with us and it becomes much more of a reality. I think that that is the process that we should follow. We have a good motion in front of us and I think all members should support it.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (7.45): Mr Speaker, I think that this is an appropriate time for me to move the amendment circulated in my name. I move:
Omit the following words:
"should change in proportion to changes in the population of electors in the ACT;
(3) agreeing that a ratio of 1 Member per 10,000 electors, as recommended in the Pettit Review of Governance of the ACT, is an appropriate ratio of Members of the Assembly to the number of electors;
(4) agreeing that the Assembly should continue to have an odd number of Members; and
(5) affirming the principles of the proportional representation (Hare-Clark) electoral system laid out in section 4 of the Proportional Representation (Hare-Clark) Entrenchment Act 1994;";
substitute:
"is a matter of public interest.".
Mr Speaker, the Labor Party has considered Ms Tucker's motion in quite considerable detail. We are aware of the debate that erupts in Canberra from time to time around whether the membership of the Assembly is appropriate, whether an Assembly of 17 people does serve the people of Canberra optimally. Whether we would be better served by a parliament of a different size, of a different constitution, of different electoral arrangements is an issue that has been alive for quite some time.
It was the subject of review by Pettit. Mr Moore referred to that in the speech that he has just given. This issue has occupied the community to some extent and has occupied, I am sure, the thinking of each of the parties and the members present in this place and, from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .