Page 4830 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
She knew that the Liberal Party had this proposal, because I said so a year ago in a press release. I indicated a year ago that, on the basis of the referendum machinery legislation, we would want to have our own Bill to entrench the Hare-Clark principles. She cannot pretend to be surprised about that. She knew full well that, if she brought this in at the last moment, she would end up with a last-moment Liberal Bill in response. She has no-one to blame but herself if she does not like that.
The Chief Minister complains about the principles that are entrenched in this legislation. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to indicate that the legislation is not an attempt to entrench the Electoral Act. The Chief Minister criticised that fact; but I indicate that, if she thinks about it a little more carefully, she will realise that it really is not possible to do that. The Electoral Act has something like 300 different sections in it. The vast majority of those sections do not materially constitute an intrinsic part of the Hare-Clark system. In fact, most of those provisions deal simply with the operation of an electoral system - the operation of elections. Whatever system we had - the Senate system or single-member electorates - many of those provisions would be exactly the same. So, entrenching the whole Electoral Act was not an option.
I suggest that what the Chief Minister really meant to say was that we should entrench parts of the Electoral Act that deal with the Hare-Clark system. But, if she looks more carefully at that proposition, she will see that that is also extremely difficult. What we end up having to do, then, is to pick out certain sections which not only build up the essential elements of the Hare-Clark system but also actually build up parts of sections. Can members imagine how difficult it would be to present a piece of legislation which entrenched line so-and-so to word so-and-so of so-and-so sections? It would be impossible. The alternative - of entrenching whole sections in various parts of the Bill - would necessarily also build into the legislation a number of other provisions which are not necessary to the Hare-Clark system. So, I think the Chief Minister needs to be aware that there really was not any alternative to the course of action that we took.
The Chief Minister suggested that I have been selective about the principles. At one point in her remarks she suggested that I had left some out. At another point she said that I had not put enough in, that I had left out some things that were intrinsic to the Hare-Clark system. I have to say that I do not share the view that everything that appeared in the referendum options booklet could be described as absolutely essential to the Hare-Clark system. For example, I do not see how one can argue that having two electorates of five members and one of seven is an essential part of the Hare-Clark electoral system. After all, Madam Speaker, the Tasmanian version of Hare-Clark has five electorates of seven members. So, the number of members and the size of the electorates are surely incidental features but not essential to how the Hare-Clark system operates. It would operate perfectly well if there were six electorates of three, or four of seven, or six of two. It is still a proportional system which has to operate.
I do, however, say in the principles that I have tabled that there are some elements of proportionality and establishing a reasonable quota for that electoral system that necessitate having at least five members in each electorate. I believe that that is an essential part of the fairness of this new system. That is essentially what people were voting for. But I think that to say that people were not voting for three seven-member
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .