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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4806 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

I also think the reason we are debating this so soon is in the hope that the electorate will forget about the change and take it as a fait accompli. I reiterate the fact that the arguments for a change to four-year terms are very weak-and Mr Stefaniak repeated many of them today.

We have heard at length how most other jurisdictions have four-year terms. However, that does not mean that a four-year term is suitable for the territory. All other jurisdictions have separate levels of local government. Does that mean we need local councils here in the ACT? All other jurisdictions have some sort of state governor who formally assents to legislation. Does that mean we need a governor here in the ACT? Most jurisdictions have an upper house. Does that mean we need one here in the ACT? Where is the legislation for the upper house in the territory? The arguments put forward are quite frivolous. It seems that the government and the opposition believe that, if they repeat them often enough, they will become more convincing.

It is not the responsibility of members of this place to make the ACT the same as every other jurisdiction. Their responsibility is to represent the needs and wishes of the territory community-and this is a community that does not need four-year terms.

Another argument is that four-year terms will somehow improve the quality of governance here in the ACT and produce a longer-term approach to decision making. Once again it is a nice line but, as the government conceded in its submission to the committee inquiry, there is no way of proving it.

In the Fourth Assembly we had an unusually long term. If we believe that longer terms produce better quality of government, then we should look at the history of the Carnell/Humphries government. Was that a better-quality government? Was that the best government we have ever had? I do not think the people of the ACT thought so.

I note that a number of members have referred to the problem of committee recommendations not being actioned into government policy. Several members have referred to problems in the last Assembly, when several social policy inquiries did not translate into government action. However, as Mr Stefaniak has pointed out, the last Assembly was almost four years long. The last Assembly had four budget cycles where policy could have been implemented through new government spending. Despite the longer term and the greater number of budgets, this did not happen.

The real determinant of a longer-term approach to good governance and better decision making is that members of the Assembly incorporate those approaches into their roles. It is not the length of the term that determines the time horizon over which governments make decisions, it is the approach that ministers and members take to decision making. Are members really happy to argue that projects like the spatial plan and the economic white paper are only looking to the next election-that they have only a three-year time horizon? I think both the Planning Minister and the Treasurer would argue otherwise and see them as long-term visions.

A further argument put forward is that four-year terms are better for the economic bottom line, but I think we all know that the cost savings are minimal. The cost savings total about $1 for every $20,000 of government spending each year. Equally wearisome is the continued reference to business confidence which Mr Stefaniak repeated today. Do

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