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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3802 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

It has always struck me that a proportional system with multi-member electorates delivers safeguards such as the safeguard against the dominance of a one-party government, a majority government. It delivers safeguards in the representation of small constituencies and minority views in the community. But it does not allow for the election of members who, with their experience, can bring thoughtful consideration to issues outside of the hurly-burly.

For that reason I have often thought that there would be some benefit in allowing members to be elected not solely through a multi-member system but also through some sort of party list system similar to that in New Zealand and similar to the system currently being considered by the citizens of the new country of East Timor. Those systems feature directly elected representatives but also members elected through a list system.

A list system would provide for the election of individuals in society who, with their experience, have something to offer but who do not have perhaps the ego to want to go out and mix it on the ground as you are required to do under the straight Hare-Clark system. It strikes me that that would offer something to the Assembly which we do not always have enough of. That is my thought on providing perhaps a better level of good government for the territory.

The other aspect I want to comment on is the delivery of services and how people in Canberra perceive good government. Individuals are interested in good decision-making, in good policy-making and in good ideas that represent their aspirations and their hopes for the community and their neighbourhood.

But there is also the question which Mr Humphries touched on in a way I do not agree with. He touched on delivering effective local government services. In comparison to many other local government areas around Australia, I do not feel that we deliver local government services as well as we could. It is not through any lack of capacity by those we employ in the various government agencies to do that work. But we do not deliver them and as well as many other jurisdictions do.

I do not believe for a moment that how well we deliver local government services is a function of this legislature. That is where I think the Chief Minister is taking the wrong approach. It is a function of the administration of the government of the city, not a function of the process of this legislature. How effectively key local government departments or agencies are organised determines how well they deliver their services.

The Department of Urban Services is the key local government service delivery agency, although not the only one. I am constantly surprised that people in the community generally still find it difficult to know whom they go to for the delivery of a local government service. In a local council you do not have that situation. But here it seems that we still have that problem.

I think there is much to be said for focusing the delivery of municipal services in such a way that people understand where they come from, understand who is responsible for them and can identify services provided to them for the purposes of maintaining and enhancing the city. A focus on streamlining and better administration of the municipal service areas of the ACT government would help to achieve that.

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