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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2310 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

There is no allowance for population growth in a 21-member chamber, whereas there would be a very small allowance in a 23-member chamber. On the current population of the ACT, a ratio of one member per 10,000 voters would result in an Assembly of 21.92 members-that is, 22 members-which is greater than 21. Twenty-two is also an even number, and I think everybody has agreed that the number should be an odd number. If we are to be better off rather than worse off, then the next odd number is 23.

I wish also to express my dissatisfaction with the lack of academic rigour demonstrated by people who purport to be learned in political construction. Very few submissions addressed anything other than the proportion of voters to members. Most academic comments centred on the possibilities for parties and independent members. There were no submissions addressing good governance, nor was there anything other than a passing comment on the role of committee members, and then only to bemoan the lack of members to do the work.

When we travelled around the countryside, we went to only three jurisdictions, but the most common number heard in those three jurisdictions was 35 members. That was not because there needed to be greater representation. It was because experienced people-former politicians, bureaucrats, electoral commissioners, academics-considered that a minimum critical mass was needed to provide good executive governance and good parliamentary support governance.

Dr Herr from the University of Tasmania posed two issues. One was the size of parliament being determined by the size of the government backbench and the executive not being greater in number than the government backbench. I will refer to that a little later. That would put a mathematical determinant on the size of the parliament. Dr Herr addressed the issue in an academic way.

He also suggested-I must admit I did not check it but took his word for it because he is a learned academic-that Papua New Guinea has a section in its constitution that provides that the executive cannot be more than 25 per cent of the parliament. That allows for a braking system from the government backbench and determines the size of the parliament.

The Liberal Party's submission had 23 as its second choice for a reasonable number. The Young Liberals first choice was 23 members. The Labor Party's submission was for 25 members, with five members from five electorates.

When batting opened on committee considerations, I thought the five-by-five model was absolutely the best. But like those making submissions, I was considered the matter only from the perspective of party preservation. When I got into the academic arguments, I found that the lowest number to provide good governance and proper representation in the ACT was 23.

I will now present argument gleaned from the collection of information provided from interstate experience and from the limited scope of evidence received.

The Assembly size ought to be configured having regard to the three elements of political structure: constituent representation, parliamentary contribution and executive governance-not necessarily in that order. The aggregation of these three imperatives

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