Page 626 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government in the ACT, and that is basically why the Government supports Mr Duby's motion. It is particularly appropriate that we consider the electoral system because that is what is at the heart of democracy.
I believe it would be highly irresponsible if by introducing this motion the No Self Government Party hopes to reopen the debate on whether the ACT should govern its own affairs. That debate is dead and the Government will not be sifting through those ashes. That is the reason why the Government will not be supporting Mr Stevenson's proposed amendment which has been circulated and which, in our view, only seeks to pursue a lost cause.
Mr Speaker, I believe we must look to the future because self-government has empowered us and employed us to do just that. Much of the debate over this motion will address the electoral system given us by the Commonwealth Parliament, the electoral system that was supported by all of the parties in that parliament. For many of those opposed to self-government the modified d'Hondt system has been a handy vehicle to blame for the delays and complications that plagued the election count. But I think it is fair to say that the first election, like all first elections, should not necessarily be treated as the norm for the future. For one thing in that first election there were a very large number of parties and individuals who stood for election and the election was complicated also by opposition to the very introduction of self-government that was around at the time.
Similarly, some people say that the d'Hondt system is not understood by the people of the ACT because it is too complicated. I wonder, Mr Speaker, how many people outside these doors, or indeed even inside them, have any idea how the Senate proportional representation system works either. Some take the view that it takes too long, and compared to single-member electorates it certainly does. It takes 8 weeks to count a New South Wales Senate election with 45 candidates, and we must bear in mind that the ACT election had 117 candidates.
The Government, as you know, is not wedded to the d'Hondt system. It is no secret that the Labor Party would have preferred single-member electorates, and it is no secret, I believe, that the modified d'Hondt system was the Federal Labor Party's fourth preferred option. So we must not take our responsibilities to the people of the ACT lightly and we will not support a change to an electoral system until we have seen and given due consideration to the alternatives.
The Government will welcome improvements to the style and form of management in the ACT. We believe that many improvements can and will be made to our systems. At heart, that is what our open government processes such as the budget and our initiatives and our commitment to the people of the ACT are all about. But I would never say
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .