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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3450 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

My original motion has been changed quite significantly by Mr Stanhope's amendment. The amendment I have just moved takes out the specificity that was in the original motion. I know that Mr Moore supported the original motion, as we did, obviously; but, as with Mr Moore, we are recognising the reality here and just want to see this debate progress in some way. I am happy to support Mr Stanhope because I believe that it is worthwhile achieving agreement on at least progressing this discussion to some degree in a bipartisan way. It was better to do that than just to drop my motion or have it voted down.

There has already been a lot of community debate on the need to increase the size of the Assembly. There was the Pettit report on governnance and the inquiry of the Assembly select committee. Mr Wood felt that the 10,000:one ratio was just plucked out of the air. I accept that it was, if that is what Mr Wood tells us, but I know that it was looked at by Pettit and that Pettit supported it as a reasonable ratio; so there have been further discussions.

Mr Wood: There is no foundation anywhere for it.

MS TUCKER: Mr Wood interjects that there is still no foundation for it. I am just trying to make the point that there has been further examination of it by Pettit and it was not found to be without substance. Looking at the proportion of voters to members across Australia, it is certainly obvious that that figure was not an overestimation. Clearly, we are underrepresented compared with the average across Australia, particularly the Northern Territory and Tasmania.

I have, as I said, accepted the fact that members want further consultation on this issue, which is at least something that we will be achieving tonight. We will have agreement that there will be consultation on this issue. I do not quite understand Mr Smyth's point that I should be undertaking the consultation. If I had the resources that Mr Smyth has, I would be delighted to carry out the consultation, but I am not a member of the government.

Normally it is accepted that it is the role of the government to undertake such broad community consultation. The Greens consult as much as possible within their resources, but it seems a rather bizarre argument to say that somehow I should take it on if I want it. This government has a consultation protocol which they say they are behind and committed to.

I know that Mr Humphries has suggested that there could be a deliberative poll on the issue, which is an interesting idea. I would be prepared to look at that further. There is a need for background information or an issues paper to be prepared for the public to explain the pros and cons of this issue. I have noticed that there is very little knowledge in the community of what MLAs and the Assembly actually do on a day-to-day basis. All they hear about in the media is that the Assembly or the government made this or that decision, but they never hear about all the lead-up work done by members in the making of those decisions.

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