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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2066 ..

severely limit the number of members as the original open registration system was being abused.

However, given the fact that we now have a different electoral system, is that logic still valid? Are a high number of members necessary to ensure that that party registration is not abused, particularly in light of the fact there are other means to secure a separate column in the act as it stands? So I think that Mrs Cross’s suggestion has some merit and I think that we should be debating it a little bit more.

The formation of new political parties is an important element in the evolution of our democratic system. Imagine what Australia would look like if we only had the same old political parties operating and there had not actually been new political parties entering the scene. Placing unnecessary barriers in the way of formation of new parties reduces the choice of voters and it does actually restrict democratic evolution. A purely self-interested party would of course not like to give itself more competitors, but I think we need to look beyond that to our wider democratic ideals.

Because of our electoral system, additional registration of parties is unlikely to give rise to feeder tickets because we do not have above-the-line voting as we have seen in the New South Wales upper house. And, equally, there is no evidence of the minimum number of people required for a political party to operate effectively. I think that that is amply demonstrated by our hardworking community groups that have only a few committed people working to achieve a great deal.

Membership numbers are by themselves a very poor indicator of the legitimacy of a political party. Perhaps members do actually have alternative views on what the numbers should be; it is, again, a debate that I think we should be having. I am aware that these amendments will not pass, but the question is a worthy one and it does merit further consideration.

MS TUCKER (11.09): The original change in clauses 4 to 11, to require the list of names and addresses of 100 members to be submitted at the same time as the application for registration of a political party, is to deal with ambiguity about when the 100 members must be counted. The members must also be correctly enrolled to vote in the ACT at that time. The 100 members threshold has been in place in the ACT from the beginning, in 1994. However, it has not been clear in the law that the members are required for the application to be accepted. This amendment makes that case.

Mrs Cross’s amendment is to lower the minimum number of members required to form a party from 100 to 50. In 2001 the Assembly removed the alternative party registration route of a party’s status being conferred by connection to anyone elected to a parliament anywhere in Australia. The aim in determining an appropriate minimum number of members is to find a balance between requiring a large enough group of people to take a claim of party status seriously and a number not so large that it is difficult for a new group to become established.

Mrs Cross has moved an amendment, to reduce the number to 50. This amendment first came up in discussions on the effect of the removal of non-party groups. It was designed to make it a bit easier to form a party. The Greens, for instance, hovered at membership just above 100 for many years and we certainly believe we are, and have always been,

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