Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2499 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

beginning on 1 July following the election - and that is unfortunate. I think we have all agreed that it is better that governments at least deliver their budgets, if not pass them, before the beginning of the financial year. That was an agreement that all of us reached in this place some time ago - although, of course, now that Mr Berry is in charge it might all change.

I assume that the house would agree that elections should be held at a time which better reflects the involvement of all people in the election process. I hope members will agree that the issue of four-year terms is an issue it is not appropriate to put forward at this point in time and that we can support the amendments which will progress the question of October elections so as to create that greater simplicity and greater efficiency of the operation of the electoral system.

MR SPEAKER: I ask members to amend the amendment which they have in front of them. It is only a minor correction. Delete the word "clause" where it appears and substitute the word "paragraph".

MR WHITECROSS (11.43), by leave: I am not the Opposition spokesperson on electoral matters anymore, just to clarify that for Mr Humphries. I feel obliged to rise, however, to set the record straight on a couple of matters and put a point of view about what Mr Humphries has had to say. Mr Humphries is perfectly correct when he says that he, Mr Moore and, I think, a representative of the Greens and I have discussed Mr Moore's Bill on more than one occasion and that on the most recent occasion, when we were leaving a meeting at which we had discussed amendments to the Financial Management Act, we had a little huddle where Mr Humphries indicated to me that the Liberal Party did not want to proceed with the four-year terms but were keen to proceed with the October date. I said that I would take that on board. We had a discussion about some consequential amendments surrounding the October date and the fact that the Labor Party still had not heard back from the Liberal Party on some of those matters. That was where the matter rested.

It is not a secret, by any stretch of the imagination, that other events have intervened which mean that I am no longer the spokesperson on electoral matters. I think it would be appropriate for Mr Humphries, and indeed other members, to give some due regard to the fact that Mr Berry has had carriage of electoral issues for only a week and he has had a couple of other things on his mind during that week as well. It would seem to me that under those circumstances it would be appropriate for the Liberal Party, and indeed the crossbenchers, to have due regard to the need for Mr Berry to get across the issues so that he can make an appropriate and full contribution to the debate.

After all, this is a serious matter, and it is appropriate that all parties in the Assembly be able to make a useful contribution to the debate, rather than having this Bill rammed through without Mr Berry being in a position to put a Labor point of view on this matter. I do not think that that is appropriate. To use the much-worn phrase of Mr Humphries's, you are setting a very dangerous precedent here, Mr Humphries, if you are going to take the view that we can ram lots of things through. The next time you come into the house and say, "We are not ready to pass this legislation, because we have had something else on our minds", we might not be so keen to adjourn it. We have always taken a very flexible approach to Government - - -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .