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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 123 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

about them?" Let us explore those options. Let us invite the community to tell us what they are.

Some options come to mind: we can stay where we are; we can have three seats of uneven size with 17 members; we can go to three electorates of seven; we can go to five electorates of five; or we can go to 25 single member electorates. Also, there are suggestions about that we could adopt the New Zealand model.

What I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that the community ought to be telling us what they think is the best way of providing governance in the ACT. There is plenty of reference material about and we have all seen it. We need to guard against any portrayal that politicians seem to feather their own nests and ensure their own re-election and the re-election of their own groups. I do not accept the argument that referral to a standing committee will provide some truth to that accusation. In fact, the constitution of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs guarantees that it is about as representative as we are going to get.

The consultation process of the standing committees in this place had that very thing in mind-that the views of all groups are represented. I think that this time the composition of the Legal Affairs Committee is a nice mix of experience and skill. I pay tribute to the longevity in this place of Ms Tucker and Mr Stefaniak, and I think they are also very much in touch with the community. In particular, Ms Tucker is a legend in this town. By actually talking to people out there in the community she sets an example for us all, and we need to tap into that. I am concerned that if we were to go down the path of another consultation process and engage in yet another Professor Pettit-type exercise, what we would end up with is the thing we are trying to avoid, and that is a debate that will be led.

In my view there is obviously a temptation whenever one commissions a report to start with the answer and let the question work itself out during the consultation phase. I think if we have a genuine desire to tap into community feeling, to develop a report for this Assembly based on what the community feels is a good idea, and make sure that a consultation process is extensive, then we will end up with a good result.

Any exchange we had of arrows and blows across the chamber in the last Assembly was about the quality of community consultation. I think we are all committed to doing this particular one properly, because here is our chance to enhance the reputation of the Assembly, to enhance the reputation and integrity of its members. I think if all of the groups in this place are driving that process, then we can be sure that that will be the result.

I am not committed to any of the models that I mentioned earlier. Various people are but I am not. I have an open mind-and please do not to confuse that with an empty bucket, which is what we have accused other members of.

I would strongly recommend that the Assembly accept this amendment. The amendment picks up that part of Ms Tucker's motion which requests the Chief Minister to undertake discussions with the Commonwealth Minister for Territories. We support that. The deletion and re-insertion is merely a drafting mechanism to make sure that the

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