Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3095 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Undoubtedly a measure of adjustment needs to occur before this can happen. As I have said, I would argue that this is not a matter of us being out there more vigorously defending and selling the concept of self-government. In the last 12 years I have done my share of arguing that the ACT needs to be self-governing, that we need to have a parliament like this and that we have to make our own decisions, because we are big boys and girls now. But there is still a very clear sense in which the ACT community has not connected with us.
As I pointed out, I think the problem is the product that we are trying to sell. We need to consider the way we do things in this place, the way we operate our form of government. When I go to meet the minister sessions, when I go shopping and I get stopped in the street, and when I am on talk-back radio or whatever it might be, I have noticed that the issues that people raise are issues of a municipal nature that local councils in other parts of Australia are concerned with-roads, street lights, parks and garbage collections. These are the things that people want to talk about.
Occasionally people want to talk about our laws on in-vitro fertilisation, the latest amendments to the Credit Act or some such state-like activity, but it is not that common for such subjects to be raised with me. I believe that rather than beating them, we have got to join them. We have got to accept that people want a different model of government in this territory. We have got to work towards revising and reviewing the sense of what we deliver to the people of this city.
We had a review into the nature of self-government in the form of the Pettit inquiry, which reported before the last election and was responded to by an Assembly committee early in the term of this Assembly. If you look at what that has achieved, you will see that very little of the reforms that were foreshadowed in that review, or in the subsequent Assembly inquiry into that matter, have been implemented. This is not because legislation has been blocked on the floor of the Assembly or whatever. It just seems to be that there has not been the consensus to take those things forward.
I know that from time to time we talk about doing some of these things, and I see members of the opposition are now talking about having electorate offices. That is fine but I really do not think that is going to turn around people's perception of what we do in here. But I accept that that view is being put forward.
I believe very firmly that we need to talk about the way this place works. We need to talk about whether we are properly meeting the expectations of this community by being a very miniature replica of the Westminster parliament, with our ministers, shadow ministers, whips, Speakers and so on and so forth-
Mr Kaine: And our crossbenchers.
MR HUMPHRIES: No crossbenchers.
Mr Kaine: Don't forget the crossbenchers.
MR HUMPHRIES
: I do not think Westminster enjoys quite the experience we do as far as crossbenchers are concerned-I use the word "enjoys" advisedly, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. But we try to do what the house on the hill does, what every other state
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .