Page 1526 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I particularly welcome the opportunity to expose to public discussion the proposals put forward by the government in their casual vacancy legislation. It is not a surprise that the Canberra Liberals have reservations about the proposal and concerns about the government’s motivation for this. I look forward to a vigorous discussion on these matters through the channels of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety and allowing the community to participate in that. I think that, amongst those people who hold views about our electoral system—and there are many people, including myself, who have a long history associated with the establishment and the entrenchment of the Hare-Clark system in the ACT; it is more than a sentimental attachment—there are many members of the community who have considerable concerns about that and would welcome the opportunity to fully explore the issues raised in the bill, because I think they do cause some trouble for the community.
I have, as the minister said, had discussions with the minister. I am not sure whether the minister had discussions with other members. I did not, because I understood from the discussion that he—actually, no, that is not true. We did discuss it in the committee. I am sorry; that was a momentary lapse. We did discuss it in the committee and there was general agreement amongst committee members that they would welcome this reference. I do apologise for that, Madam Assistant Speaker.
I did not, outside the committee, discuss this with members of the committee and I do not know whether the minister did. He may wish to do so. It would have been courteous of him to do so; I hope that he did. But we do not have a problem with this reference and I look forward to the inquiry.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.46): I rise in my capacity as deputy chair of the committee to welcome the referral of this matter to the committee. For the record, and for members who were not here during this particular period, I was the deputy chair of the same committee when we considered issues around the size of the Assembly and the number of years of term we would have. I remind members that there was public consultation on that issue which actually resulted in the community accepting the argument about a four-year term for the Assembly as opposed to a three-year term.
It was also determined that the community was not ready at that point to increase the size of the Assembly from 17 to 21, 23, 25, 27 or 35. Those were the figures that were advised by various experts in the field, particularly by a professor from Tasmania whose name escapes me, who was very well read on this matter.
That inquiry followed on from the Pettit report into the Assembly. What happened was that the community was invited to engage in matters of sovereignty in the ACT. I observe now that the question of ACT sovereignty is very much alive and well out there in community conversation—whether or not we should govern ourselves. Therefore, it would be a bit inappropriate for us to just consider this particular proposal, particularly the one on the filling of casual vacancies, without public engagement, when our community have this sort of subject right in the front of their minds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video