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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2311 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

should drive the size of any parliament, not a number which gives a party the best chance of forming government or a system which gives the crossbench the greatest chance of holding the balance of power.

Too much comment in the media is about Labor and Liberal fighting it out to see who can create the best system to ensure that they win government. Not enough attention is paid to the arguments advanced by the minor parties centred on their need to hang on to the balance of power on the crossbenches.

I turn to the first element of political structure: constituent representation. I will not go through all the detail. It is in the report, and people can look at it at their leisure.

We have been criticised for comparing the ACT with other jurisdictions. I reject that criticism. Comparisons with representation in the two state jurisdictions most like the ACT-the Northern Territory and Tasmania-is useful. However, it should be noted that, unlike in the ACT, councils in both the Northern Territory and Tasmania have a role in providing municipal services. I have only ever seen passing reference to that in the media. The media ought to be ashamed of themselves for not acknowledging that point up front. I criticise Professor Warhurst and Professor Wettenhall for their lack of academic rigour and not addressing that issue.

Based only on state-level representational ratios, any increase in members of the ACT Legislative Assembly will not dramatically change comparisons with the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Currently the ratio of members to population in the ACT is 1:19,118. Twenty-one members would mean a ratio of 1:15,476; 23 members, a ratio of 1:14,130; and 25 members, a ratio of 1:13,000. The difference is not significant.

Based on the number of electors being 220,000, the figure the Electoral Commissioner gave in his submission, the ratio of members to electors with 17 members would be 1:12,900; with 21 members, 1:10,476; with 23 members, 1:9,500; and with 25 members, 1:8,800. Therefore, you can see, Mr Speaker, that 23 members is the closest number to 1:10,000. Increasing the number of electors per member to more than 10,000 would continue the representational burden on members.

Population numbers and elector numbers per member in the ACT far exceed those in both the Northern Territory and Tasmania. Comparison with any other jurisdiction in Australia only makes the picture worse, because those jurisdictions have multiple tiers of government.

Electoral boundaries to accommodate 23 members should be determined by the quality of representation such boundaries would impose. If one accepts that proportional representation is paramount, an electorate construction of two seats of nine members and one of five members would satisfy the theory. So too would two electorates of seven members and one of nine members. This hinges on the theory that an odd number of members should be elected to an odd number of seats.

If the proportional representation model is not accepted but it is felt that community of interest-coupled with one vote, one value-is a more appropriate model, the construction of three seats of six members and one of five members would satisfy that model.

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