Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 9 Hansard (19 September) . . Page.. 2843..
MR SESELJA (continuing):
not to unduly restrict development and, when we make recommendations, I think it is important that we take account of the impact of those recommendation not just on the environment but, if those recommendations were taken up, on the cost of housing in the ACT, which is an ever growing and ever important issue.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Leave of absence
Motion (by Mr Hargreaves ) agreed to:
That leave of absence be given to Mr Barr (Minister for Education and Training) and Mr Corbell (Attorney-General) for this sitting.
Electoral Amendment Bill 2006
Debate resumed from 17 August 2006.
Clauses 1 to 3.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (10.48): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2907].
My amendment No 1 is a substituted amendment which we put in last time. This particular bill has had more false starts than a lot that have been reported in this place. It replicates an amendment initially put in by Dr Foskey. The Liberal Party had a look at the bill again and felt that, given the discussions last time between the Attorney-General, Dr Foskey and me, this probably would be the best way to go.
This particular amendment will ensure, firstly, that a person who had been a member of any parliament in Australia or a legislature of a state or territory, including, of course, the Legislative Assembly, could not be appointed a member. However, it would enable the executive to appoint a person who had not been, in the five years immediately before such an appointment, a member of a political party registered under the law of the commonwealth, state or territory—basically, any political party.
We feel this body has to be seen as squeaky clean; it has to be seen to be above politics. We feel that, even though there will probably be very many people who might have been members of parliament and who would be probably ably qualified to contribute, there is still that perception that would linger because of the fact that they had been members of a parliament. In the interests of complete transparency, it would be far better if they were unable to be a member.
That is not so perhaps with people who might have been a member of a political party. That is the second part of the amendment. People might simply have been a member for