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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3446 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

My initial comment on Ms Tucker's motion was to be that, for somebody who is always so keen on public consultation going ahead, perhaps she should have gotten out and done the consultation on her own. It is quite interesting that she floats an idea and then asks the government to do the work for her. I would have followed that up by simply saying that, if Ms Tucker wanted that to happen, she would have had to get her colleagues on the benches opposite to agree, but it would seem that Mr Stanhope has been able to achieve that on his own. I welcome his offer and his words that are now on the record that this can only occur with a bipartisan approach and that the Labor Party is willing to back that bipartisan approach. That is what Mr Humphries, on behalf of the government, has been calling for for some time.

Mr Speaker, if the foreshadowed amendment gets up and the version that I have just read out, which I think accurately reflects what Mr Stanhope intends to happen, the question then is: in the morning will Mr Stanhope and Mr Humphries put out a joint press release on behalf of the Assembly and do the media together to ensure that there is a bipartisan approach, because that is the only way it can happen? If there is any point scoring or games with this matter, all it will do is make us look like a bunch of greedy or perhaps foolish politicians feathering our own nests.

The issue of representation is important. I once had figures quoted to me-I cannot recall the source and offer my apologies for that-indicating that Tasmania has the most represented system of government with something like one politician for every 2,800 Tasmanians.

Mr Moore: No, it is much less than that, 650 at the most.

Mr Hargreaves: It is 1,250.

MR SMYTH: Mr Moore corrects me, saying that it is 650, and Mr Hargreaves says that it is 1,250. It is very low. I understand that the ACT has one politician for about 13,000 members of the population. Clearly, when you get that range of disparity, it is time to take into account how best to serve the people of the ACT. We have actually had a report that suggested that there be more members. It is a shame that it has taken almost two years to get to a position where, clearly, the majority of the members are in favour of proceeding with that. So, Mr Speaker, the government will be supporting the amendments that will bring about the situation I read out at the start of my speech.

Mr Kaine raises an interesting option. This government has never been afraid to step outside the envelope in terms of how it governs. Indeed, my colleague the leader of the house, Mr Moore, was invited into it as, I would assume, the only Independent cabinet minister ever in a government in Australia. It was this government, under Kate Carnell, that did that. That trial has proved to be very successful and the way that we have been able to work together is an indication that you can step outside the envelope.

I am reminded of a story that was relayed to me that the Founding Fathers and the authors of the American Constitution when the battle for President was over actually thought that the losing candidate for President should therefore become the Vice-President. I can just see Mr Bush and Mr Gore sorting that one out! But it does not mean that you cannot step outside the envelope and look at different systems.

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