Page 5116 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
replace a vacating member. The majority of members on the committee supported this proposal. I did not, and I will leave it for the members who supported this proposal to say why they supported it. I would rather put to you the views about why this should not be supported.
Given my history in relation to Hare-Clark, my association with the Proportional Representation Society and my understanding of why we have the electoral system we do—I contend there is probably no-one else in this Assembly who has as much knowledge or background in this area—I believe the proposals put forward by the government are designed to circumvent the intent of the Hare-Clark electoral system.
One of the important and constant themes during the Hare-Clark referendum in 1992 was that Hare-Clark was about giving power to people, individual electors, over the party machine. “People power for Canberra” was one of the banners we used on a regular basis. The electoral material that went out in 1992 and again with the referendum in 1995 to entrench was that there was a discussion about the countback system and how the countback system took power away from the party machines to determine who would sit in this place and gave it fairly and squarely to the people of the ACT.
The proposal in the current casual vacancy bill to give more power to parties to decide who might fill the casual vacancies in certain circumstances flies in the face of the initial and original intent of the architects of the Hare-Clark system and the architects of Hare-Clark in the ACT and flies in the face of the enhancements that we have made to Hare-Clark in the ACT since 1995.
I believe this is another step in the process of the Labor Party trying to circumvent Hare-Clark. They opposed its introduction in 1992. They opposed its entrenchment in 1995. They have done a whole lot of things to try and circumvent it. It was interesting that after the debacle of the 1998 election, the Labor Party had a recommendation in their electoral review to say: “Give up the fight against Hare-Clark. Accept Hare-Clark as being the electoral system of the ACT.” But they can never do it.
Changes were made when there was a majority government that make it impossible for non-party groupings to be listed on the ballot paper. Now we have this system of ensuring that the Labor Party has as much say as possible in ensuring that its mates come into this place if there is a vacancy.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Thank you.
MRS DUNNE: If there is a vacancy in this place, the Labor Party want a say as to whether their mates get in or not. It is quite clear, and we have seen it a number of times, that Mr Corbell is here today because the Labor Party tapped one of his colleagues on the shoulder and said, “You will not run for countback.” There was somebody who got a much higher vote than Mr Corbell when there was a countback when Rosemary Follett vacated her seat, but the Labor Party said, “You’re not in a position—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video