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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3452 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Ms Tucker also proposed that we agree that the Assembly should continue to have an odd number of members. The Labor Party does not necessarily agree that we should, or must, have an odd number of members. We do not necessarily agree that that is the case. I have heard it discussed that it would be possible to have four electorates of five members. I have heard suggestions of three electorates and five members and a Canberra-wider electorate of six. I have heard a range of suggestions in relation to possible configurations. The Labor Party does not accept that any of them are appropriate or reasonable; so we do not accept that that would be appropriate.

As Ms Tucker indicated in her speech on the amendment to which I have moved my amendment, she thought it appropriate that the public consultation that we are seeking include consultation on the specific proposal to increase the membership of the Assembly to 21 with seven members representing each of three electorates.

Once again, the Labor Party is not saying that it would support an increase to 21 members. We are quite unequivocally not suggesting that we support a change of membership at all. We are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that we would be prepared to join with the government in a bipartisan consultation process. We are not suggesting for one minute that we would agree to an increase in the size of the Assembly.

We are certainly not suggesting that we would agree to a proposal that there be three 7-member electorates. Members would be aware that Mr Hird presented a submission to the Pettit review and gave evidence supporting seven 3-member electorates. It is Mr Hird's heartfelt view that we should have an increase to 21 members, but they should be comprised in seven 3-member electorates. That is Mr Hird's view; at least it was at the time of the Pettit review.

Ms Tucker has suggested today that she would propose three electorates of seven members. Mr Kaine has suggested another configuration which might involve a decrease in the size of the membership of the Assembly. The Labor Party is suggesting that these are all the sorts of things that we feel might appropriately be the subject of a public consultation process. What we are doing is saying that we acknowledge the political reality.

This sort of decision is very difficult; we acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that it is a big ask to request the Liberal Party, through the government, basically to go out on its own, so to speak, with an opposition sniping and carping at its heels, and expect it to enter into genuine consultation on a difficult political issue. We are saying that we acknowledge and recognise that and will support this consultation process. We will not seek to score cheap political points.

But let not our position be misinterpreted. We are not saying for one minute, and I do not believe the Liberal Party is either, that we support an increase in the membership. That is not what we are saying and that is not, basically, the basis of the consultation that we are supporting. We will support consultation about the size of the parliament.

Mr Smyth did read out his understanding of what the amended motion might look like. There was a part three of Ms Tucker's amendment, which reads, "Report to the Assembly on the implementation of this motion by the end of June 2001." I do not have

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