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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2307 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

performance. Since we were allowed 17 members back in 1989, times have moved on. It is a unanimous recommendation of the committee that the number of members be increased.

The committee very carefully considered the appropriate number of members. Views put forward favoured increases of 21, 23 or 25. On balance, a majority of the committee considered that an increase to 21 members was justified on the following grounds as set out in the report:

it is a modest increase in the size of the Assembly and so will not be too expensive (the committee understands that the cost of four additional members would be approximately $900,000 per year, with the likelihood that they can be accommodated in the existing chamber and building

it recognises the greater proportionality of seven-member electorates-thus the major political parties would get a different number of seats depending on the votes actually cast for them, while at the same time minor parties and independents that can reach the quota of 12.5% would obtain representation

it applies this improved proportionality to all three electorates, thus making it more equitable than the current arrangements.

it satisfies the existing legislative entrenched provisions whereby each electorate must have at least five members and each electorate must have an odd number of members

it provides for the possibility that the electoral boundaries for the Assembly could be aligned to those for the ACT's federal electorates in the event that Canberra's population justifies a third federal member (the committee recognises that there is no guarantee that three federal seats would be a permanent arrangement)

Mr Hargreaves dissented and put in a dissenting report. Recommendation 3 therefore was:

A majority of the committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly for the ACT be increased to 21 members based on three electorates of seven members each.

It is useful to list some of the arguments put in relation to 21, 23 and 25, the numbers put most often by bodies that appeared before the committee. The committee noted the following arguments advanced to support 23 members:

it may be viewed as the minimum number of members required to achieve adequate constituent representation, parliamentary contribution especially on committees, and sound executive governance

it would be the figure arrived at were the ratio of members to voters maintained at the level existing at the start of self-government in 1989 (once account is taken of the entrenched provision that each electorate must elect an odd number of members and the desirability of the Assembly also having an odd number of members)

it would facilitate a better working of the committee system

it could facilitate an increase in the number of ministers ...

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