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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3442 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

There was a unanimous decision to bring in a form of self-government which was very similar to what we have today and which did identify a membership of 21. I repeat that the decision was unanimous.

If you look at the letters to the editor in today's Canberra Times, you will see a letter from a reader who argues that there is no way that we need a municipal government per se; we need a government for state and local matters. I would go so far as to say, as I did back in 1985, that what we have before us today is the forerunner to regional government. The fact is that the ACT is in the centre of 600,000 people and its health, medical and court systems service the full region, rather than just the 311,000 residents of the ACT.

The Pettit inquiry analysed the situation fairly and properly and determined, as did the former House of Assembly in 1986, that there should be 21 members, giving a ratio for how that membership should be arrived at. It is sad, if I may just touch on a negative, that the select committee on governance, of which you were a member, Mr Speaker, did not grasp the nettle at that time. However, let us look forward, not backwards.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is refreshing to see the Leader of the Opposition proposing an amendment and moving forward. As we move forward, we should always remember that this matter is not about the grandeur of a legislature with a small number of members; it is about the grandeur of a legislature which is there to represent its people. To do that it has to have appropriate arrangements and membership so that they can be properly heard and represented.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a bipartisan arrangement is needed for the membership to be increased to 21. No-one in the community would ever argue that there should be more members. Mr Rugendyke, as an ex-policeman, would know that you do not need a policeman until you are robbed. It is a bit the same in my profession; you do not need a politician until a tree is falling over, a footpath is breaking up or there is some alleged infill program. We need to put it right so that constituents can have better access to their local members and have better representation. After all, we are here at the will of our constituents.

MR KAINE (8.05): I have listened to this debate with considerable interest. I have been particularly interested in the remarks about bipartisanship. I know that you, Mr Speaker, with great respect, have advocated that there should be more members of this place and that that has long been your view. I am going to put forward a proposition for fewer members. It will be interesting to see how far it gets. In the interests of bipartisanship-

Mr Quinlan: Do you have anybody in mind?

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Quinlan, I am not going to get cross with Mr Kaine for advocating that there should be fewer members and you should not, either.

MR KAINE: I put forward this proposal for serious consideration in the interests of bipartisanship. It has long been my view that we could do with fewer, not more. I think that that is a proposition that would appeal to the general community out there. But it does require a bipartisan approach. My proposal would be that we reduce the number of members to 15, three electorates of five.

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