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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3335 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

its recommendations far more readily than the current committee tenure. This also holds a government accountable for its promises.

An extra year in office enables a new government to conduct its reviews in the first year, implement its changes in the second and third years and go to an election in the fourth. We should be honest and admit that we plan in the first, do in the second and try to get re-elected in the third-in other words, only one action year. Another year of actually doing is a good thing.

A longer term encourages economic activity. The certainty of working with a government over a longer period enables the private sector to plan their business cycles with greater predictability and certainty. The rate of change in the ACT can only work against business confidence. The private sector has often complained about elections disrupting their long-term planning, with damaging effects on the local economy. It's been noted that retail sales drop in the period before elections. The community and non-government sectors will also benefit from greater certainty and longer-term planning.

When I came into this place I took some time to learn the trade, I took some time to learn about committee work, responsibilities of a shadow ministry, how to manage a large constituent load and the intricacies of the chamber itself. But I was afforded the luxury of a three-year and eight-month term, so at the end of it I had a handle on it all. I had nearly the four-year term. We change 30 per cent of the Assembly in each election, and I wonder how many that would be if members had four years to deliver to their constituents instead of the three years.

There are many reasons why a four-year term provides better, more predictable, more certain and considered governance. There are many reasons why accountability rather than being diminished is actually enhanced. There is no intention to change the nature of the Assembly in terms of minority governance other than the greater success at the ballot box. This is not a way to enhance the privilege of elected members and it actually saves $630,000 over a three-election cycle, and puts us out of sync with the Commonwealth.

The referral to the standing committee would complete a five-year consultation process. It seems quite timely that we make a decision. Do we remain behind the other states or do we not? If I were a young person thinking about community service in this place, I would prefer to put my career on hold for a period of four years-and eight years if they perform to the constituents' satisfaction-rather than three years. Now is the time to decide so that they in the community who are contemplating running for this Assembly know the length of time they're offering to the community and the length of time the community will expect them to serve.

Finally, when the Assembly went to the three-year and eight-month term as a one-off to change the date of elections there was no murmur from academics, political parties or the general public. It was not seen as an important issue. The concept of extending the number of seats did attract some attention but not the length of the term. However this referral will give everyone the opportunity of putting a view to the Assembly and I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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