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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 3980 ..

MR STEFANIAK

The cons, the arguments against a four-year term, included a loss of voter sovereignty- with a particularly unpopular government people had to wait an extra year to toss it out-that it could be inappropriate for a unicameral parliament as there was no upper house to scrutinise, and that there were insufficient safeguards for the parliamentary process because of the extra year. There was an opinion that there could be poorer decision making, which is interesting because there was a counterargument that there would be better decision making with four-year terms. Another argument against a four-year term was that it does not necessarily facilitate long-term government planning, although again a converse argument was put that four-year terms facilitated long-term government planning. So those were the arguments that were put to us.

I must say that this is not an issue that seems to grab people in the electorate. It was suggested to the committee anecdotally that most people probably think it is a good idea. But, although I think it would be true to say that the majority of the submissions were very much in favour of four-year terms, it was a bit disappointing that we did not have more people appear before the committee.

It is also interesting and very appropriate to note-this was mentioned several times by people before the committee-that from 1998 to October 2001 we in fact had a term of three years and eight months, and the world did not seem to come to an end; no-one in the community seemed to think that that term, which was very close to a four-year term, caused any problems. That is probably a fairly telling argument in favour of a four-year term, as well as community attitudes and the fact that virtually every other Australian jurisdiction has it.

I think probably the most vexed question, and one that certainly caused me some angst, is whether this should be done by way of referendum or by simple amendment. The argument in favour of a referendum is, of course, that the people can decide. The converse arguments are that there have been previous inquiries during which there has been from the community a significant amount of support for and very little opposition to the concept of a four-year term, and we have had virtually a four-year term before with no problems, so there is no need for a referendum on something like this.

There is another argument in relation to the cost of referendums. I think there was evidence given that it would cost about a quarter of a million dollars or more. For me, that is not so important an issue. If there were a real push by a segment of the community against the concept of a four-year term, that would necessitate a referendum. But, having looked into this issue, I have not detected any opposition to it. I also note that in Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria amendments were simply made to their acts to go to four-year terms, without any great opposition from the community. The Northern Territory, of course, since its inception has had a four-year term. I think New South Wales was the only state to go to a referendum on the issue.

So there was consistency in how the other states went about amending their laws and there was no huge outcry from the community. Therefore, on balance, having given the matter careful consideration and given that we have had effectively a four-year term before without any significant problem, I feel it is probably more appropriate to move by way of amendment. I note that my colleague Mr Hargreaves concurs with me, although

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