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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4805 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

1998 and October 2001. There did not seem to be any dramas in relation to that. Indeed, people I spoke to generally out in the electorate fully expected that, after that, the Assembly would go to four-year terms. That did not occur and we now have the Fifth Assembly with a three-year term. On balance, the benefits tend to outweigh the minuses.

I think you need to take a long-term, practical and principled view in relation to that and, as an opposition, we have taken that view. We could say, "Right, we are in opposition now. Stuff it! Let us just go for a three-year term."But I do not think that would be sensible and I do not think it would be right. I think it is important to look at the benefits of the system. If the system will benefit from a four-year term, then it is worthy of support.

The opposition has looked quite closely at this over recent years, with various views, I must say-much like the Labor Party. It is true to say that not everyone in our party would support a four-year term. But, looking at it on balance and after considerable discussion, we have come to the view that a four-year term is in the better interests of the ACT community. It brings us into line with all governments except the federal and Queensland governments. As I have indicated, it would be beneficial to avoid federal government elections clashing with those of the ACT government. The opposition will be supporting this bill.

MS DUNDAS (11.56): We have already had a debate about four-year terms in this Assembly. I refer members to the comments I made when the report of the standing committee was tabled in October. I must say I find the speed at which this decision has been made to be very quick. We had a very fast committee inquiry that went for about six weeks. The report of the committee was tabled in the October sittings; the legislation appeared in November; and we are now, a week later, voting on it.

I guess that demonstrates that, when Labor and Liberal get together, they can move things through the Assembly very quickly. If everything moved through the Assembly at such speed, maybe we would not need four-year terms because we would get everything done!

I think we all need to recognise that this bill is really one of political convenience for members of the Labor and Liberal parties. There is no-one out there in the community, I understand, desperately pushing for this to happen. I have never heard of a community rally to extend the terms of the Assembly. This bill is about politicians who want to keep their jobs and enjoy the prestige and power for a longer period of time.

Members can sit around and invent dozens of reasons why this is a great idea but it really boils down to the fact that it is the people who are in the best position to judge whether we should have longer terms here in the ACT. The voters are our employers. They are the people who know best whether we should be given extensions of our contracts. But Labor and Liberal members have decided that they can renew their own contracts; that this will not go to a referendum; that we will sit through the job interview again and whoever gets the job will be there for a longer time. I believe the reason the major parties refuse to put this to the electorate is that they realise the voters will not support them if given the opportunity.

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