Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 3981 ..
MR STEFANIAK
(continuing):Ms Tucker has a different view, which I respect, and she will no doubt talk about that in her dissenting report.
I commend the report to the Assembly. We have also, of course, recommended that it would be completely inappropriate-and I think the evidence before the committee backs this up-for this Assembly to try now to extend its term, as the voters of Canberra elected us to serve them for three years. However, the recommendation of the majority is that steps should be put in place to ensure that the term of the next Assembly, the Assembly starting in effectively probably late October or early November 2004, be a four-year term. This would simply mean amending section 100, I think, by changing three years to four years. That would then be in place for the next Assembly which-correct me if I am wrong-would be the Sixth Assembly. That would be far more appropriate; I certainly agree that it would be inappropriate to try to extend our term now. On that point there is also a precedent: the election date was changed from February to October in, I think, 1997 so that that could take effect for what was the Fourth Assembly which went from March 1998 through to November 2001.
I will close with those comments. I commend the report to the Assembly and once again thank everyone involved for what was a fairly quick but fairly intensive study that has led us to where we are today with this report.
MR HARGREAVES
(10.45): I rise to support the comments from the chair, Mr Stefaniak, on this report to the Assembly. There are a couple of points I would like to make. This is not the first time discussion on this issue has occurred, and there has been about as much community interest in this inquiry as in previous ones. The extent of community engagement has been one of apathy. We advertised the inquiry in the media and called for public submissions. I have talked about it to community organisations, imploring people to have their say. Essentially, they voted with their feet; in fact, that was confirmed by at least two witnesses. As I recall it-but I stand to be corrected-Associate Professor Mackerras and Professor Warhurst agreed that there was extensive apathy about the suggestion. It is my view from the evidence before us that people are more interested in the increase in the size of the Assembly than they are in the length of the term of office; they see those as two quite distinct issues.The report goes into the pros and cons, as Mr Stefaniak has said, as listed on page 5 in chapter 2.1. I would like to just underscore a couple of them. I think the issue of business confidence is actually more about business predictability and the stability of policy relating to business. Whether it be a Liberal or a Labor government in the ACT mattered not to business in this particular instance. In the information given to me, a four-year term was regarded as providing more certainty for business. Indeed, one of the people did say that retail sales dropped one year prior to an election. That really gives the business community only one year of certainty, and I know, from the grumblings in the press of late, that they are looking for more certainty.
I will not go into the cost savings; one can read that for oneself. From the perspective of a backbench member there are issues about the value of a four-year term. One is that backbench members, whether in government, in opposition or on the crossbenches, tend to be a little closer to their constituents because-with no offence to the ministry-we have the time to do that. Another issue is that we have about a 30 per cent change in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .