Page 978 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
but Queensland have a four-year term. This is not a matter that I feel strongly about. Clearly, the majority of members of the Assembly prefer the three-year term. I bow to the numbers. Therefore, the Government is moving that amendment.
MR MOORE (8.31): Madam Speaker, my preferred position, from a personal perspective, is a four-year term, and I think I can present very good arguments for a four-year term. However, it is also clear to me that nobody in this Assembly has gone through an election saying, "I prefer a four-year term". I think that on an issue like this it would be preferable that we at least have some form of mandate. My proposal for dealing with this, Madam Speaker, was to prepare a referendum question for the next election, distinguished from Mr Stevenson's referendum questions - a politically inspired initiated referendum. Whilst the issue is not being dealt with now, that is satisfactory as far as I am concerned. Some members may decide to have that as part of their party policy at the next election. If that is the case, I would be very comfortable about dealing with an amendment after the next election, or, conversely, putting it to a referendum.
MR STEVENSON (8.33): One of the questions we surveyed over four days recently was whether the term of the ACT Legislative Assembly should be two years, three years or four years.
Mr Cornwell: Or none of the above.
MR STEVENSON: The reason why I did not include "other" may become obvious to most people here. A large percentage of people would put "zero". That is the explicit reason why I did not put it in. While that might agree with the point that I make - that people do not want the thing - as it was a question I needed to vote on I needed an answer. Although I would favour allowing them to put "other", and I usually do, in this particular case - - -
Mr Kaine: Why did you mention two years, though? Who said two?
MR STEVENSON: You do not think they want five, do you? Let us look at the result. The suggestions from the politician-initiated ideas were either three or four. I asked about two, three or four years, and when you look at the survey results they tend to show that it was the right area. A total of 507 people were asked and 477 answered the questions. The results were: Two years, 29 per cent; three years, 34 per cent; four years, 32 per cent; not concerned, 3 per cent; not enough information, one per cent. Most people favour the middle road, or less, so I will agree with three years. It is interesting that there was a fairly even spread.
Unless you ask a preferential voting question, it is hard to ask for more than a yes or a no. That is why, in the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill, we have given people the opportunity to ask preferential questions. Otherwise, you could ask 10 questions and you could get 10 per cent on each, and then what do you do? What does that tell you? It can be important, firstly, that you ask enough questions, and that, of course, highlights the fact that there were not enough at the 1992 referendum. Secondly, you allow people to have a preference. The preference may have been for d'Hondt or Hare-Clark under a 17-seat single electorate system for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .