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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3451 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Hird pointed out that if people do feel the need or get upset enough to contact a local politician they get very annoyed if they cannot get access to that person. I try to see anybody who wants to see me, but it is extremely difficult to do so. I agree with Mr Hird that people can become upset when they find that they cannot access a politician when they feel the need to do so.

The argument has been put that the feeling in the community is that most politicians are not held in high regard and the creation of a larger Assembly would result in them getting more politicians than they want. This seems a rather odd argument as it implies that the way to deal with the negative behaviour of politicians is to restrict the number of them. I think that members here are deluding themselves if they think that avoiding the issue of the number of politicians would make them look more responsible, or at least not increase the negative perceptions that some people have. The negative perceptions of politicians come from their own behaviour, not the total number of them. If politicians want to improve their status in the community, it is up to them to act more ethically.

It is also the case that if members do not address this issue and the Assembly becomes less and less effective in meeting the community's needs as Canberra's population grows, the negative perceptions about politicians could increase anyway. I would much prefer to make this Assembly more effective by increasing the number of members and risking any short-term political backlash than letting the work of this Assembly gradually decline in quality as we become even more overloaded with demands.

I would also like to remind members that my motion says that any increase should not occur until the 2004 election. I am obviously trying to take some of the political heat out of the debate, but I think that it is still not something on which we should go too slow, because we will find if we do that that we will be getting closer to the 2004 election and it will be harder for members to support it because of the perceived political backlash; so it would be a good thing to get going right now. I am glad that there appears to be agreement here tonight on progressing the debate.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (8.41): Mr Speaker, I move the following amendment to Ms Tucker's amendment:

Mr Speaker, I think the issue has been well canvassed, but I will just reiterate a couple of points. The Labor Party's position in this regard is that we are happy for this process of consultation to proceed. Perhaps it is relevant for me, in the context of the amendment I have moved, to give a brief outline of those aspects of Ms Tucker's motion that the Labor Party will not agree to and that I have, through the amendment I have proposed, suggested be changed.

As part of a preamble to the motion, Ms Tucker had a proviso that the Assembly agree that a ratio of one member per 10,000 electors, as recommended in the Pettit review of governance, be an appropriate ratio. As Mr Wood has indicated, the Labor Party does not accept that that is appropriate. Perhaps that is a matter that will be the subject of the consultation, but we do not necessarily accept that that is the case.

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