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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3334 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

1999. The Assembly has also looked at the matter via the report of the Select Committee on the Report of the Review of Governance and, most recently, the 2002 Legal Affairs Committee inquiry into the appropriate size of the ACT Legislative Assembly. These reviews have generally supported four-year terms and I believe a further period of public consultation via the Assembly's Legal Affairs Committee would assist in highlighting the many advantages of such a reform.

These reviews-and one expects the same for the inquiry I propose-have, and will have, the engagement of those in the community who are interested in governance. That is, academics in the science of politics, political parties and lobby groups and, I would hope, business groups and interests. If I'm right, the general public is fairly apathetic towards the notion of changing from three to four-year terms, but would welcome at least some of the implications.

Members may be aware that the ACT and Queensland are the only jurisdictions among the states to have three-year terms. Queensland has no upper house and is not more relevant than other jurisdictions. Tasmania, with whom we share our electoral system, has had four-year terms since 1972. The Northern Territory, the closest to our own unicameral system, has had four-year terms since the establishment of self-government in that territory. For the record, New South Wales has been so since 1981, Victoria since 1984, South Australia since 1985 and Western Australia since 1987. All these jurisdictions had four-year terms before the emergence of self-governance in the ACT. So it could be argued the ACT is out of step with most other jurisdictions.

So what are the benefits, other than saving the taxpayer $630,000 over a three-election cycle? For the average voter, it means predominantly the ACT would be out of sync with the Commonwealth. Who remembers the election year of 2001? The ACT and Commonwealth issues became blurred in the minds of the voter and I can remember fielding many questions on the hustings which were the province of my federal colleagues. The Commonwealth having its headquarters here often blurs the distinction between our two parliaments.

Some have expressed the view that a move to longer terms would reduce accountability for the government of the day. I would argue that we are only extending the terms by 12 months and not a lengthy period. I'm not arguing for Senate or state upper house terms but rather parity with most other lower houses.

Further, the ACT will continue to enjoy predominantly a minority government system. This means that for most assemblies the government of the day is accountable to the Assembly because it does not enjoy a majority and is dependent upon the support of either the crossbench or the opposition. Governments have regularly been held to account in this Assembly. Indeed, on two occasions governments have been replaced and the Chief Minister resigned because the Assembly held that minister to account.

The four-year term means also that committees are convened for that period and have the time to investigate issues, make reports, and hold the government of the day accountable for the implementation of change. All too often a committee report is acknowledged but there's been a change in government and the report's recommendations are lost in the mists of time. An extra year enables the committee to examine action taken in respect of

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