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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 3983 ..

MR HARGREAVES

There will be phantoms and horrors that people will throw up about a four-year term. To those on the conservative side who say, "Oh, no, we can't have a Labor Party government in place for too long,"I remind them that the Northern Territory parliament had four-year terms from its inception, it was an awful long time before the Labor Party came into office in the Northern Territory, and the wheels did not fall off the territory during that time. Now there is a Labor government in the Northern Territory. Their parliament, in common with ours, is unicameral and very small, serving a relatively small population.

A comparison with Tasmania is interesting because they also have the Hare-Clark system, although they do not have five electorates as we do and, unlike us, they have an upper house. I remind those people of the minor party persuasion who say, "Oh no, you can't have a majority government because that is bad for sovereignty"that majority government is not the regular feature, although it happens occasionally, under the Hare-Clark system. The wheels have not fallen off Tasmania. Tasmania is not a bankrupt state; its citizens live a fairly reasonable lifestyle, thank you very much. It has a majority government at the moment, which seems to be functioning okay, and I think it has five Tasmanian Greens members. So four-year terms certainly do not work against proportional representation. It means that Tasmanians have the blessed benefit of five Greens for four years instead of three and-who knows?-for their sins they may even have another five next election.

I agree with the chair of the committee on the issue of a referendum: we do not need to spend the first two years of savings on a referendum to come up with the inevitable. We heard evidence that the probability was that 60 per cent of people would say yes to four-year terms, because they really do not care. The savings of $125,000 a year would be a lot better spent on other things. We have had no shortage of suggestions on how money can be spent in this town-on affordable housing, addressing poverty and a whole stack of things. To suggest that we blow $250,000 in one year on a referendum that we do not really need borders on the irresponsible.

In answer to those who talk about a conflict of interest, I would like to underscore something Mr Stefaniak said. If this Assembly were to change the law now to extend the term of the Fifth Assembly to four years, we would be absolutely guilty of conflict of interest; that accusation would be valid. If, on the other hand, we have the four-year term commencing from the next election-remembering that that election is 12 months away-there is no conflict of interest. As I said earlier, 30 per cent of members in this place change every election. The voters have got 12 months to say, "John Hargreaves, you were pushing this thing and we don't like what you have done, so you're on your bike."They've got plenty of time to say that and plenty of time to consider it. There is no conflict of interest because we are all on notice. There is no such thing as a safe seat under Hare-Clark. So I reject any notion of conflict of interest if we make the change start from the next election.

We have to remember that the election in 2004 is the ultimate referendum on all of us. If voters want to take it out on us for doing something, they will vote us out. If they think we should be returned for four years, they will vote us back in. The electoral commissioner will be telling people for 12 months, in his education program about the change, that they are going to be electing people for four years, not three.

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