VICHANSARD
Hansard Search Result
[Previous
page] [First
Match] [New
Search]

Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's
contributions to the whole speech.

Title

CONSTITUTION (PARLIAMENTARY REFORM) BILL

House

COUNCIL

Activity

Second Reading

Members

DAVIS

Date

25 March 2003

Page

437

but will also - if I am elected in the eastern region, region 1
- be representing places like Portsea, Sorrento and Mount Eliza.

I recently went down to Sorrento just to investigate the
opportunities in the area and noted there was quite a difference in focus and
orientation from the areas I presently represent. Nevertheless, I think I could
accommodate that transition if it is required.

An Honourable Member - Will you get up at no. 3?

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS - I was actually wondering how many of them
voted down there.

The point I wanted to make was that this is not just a
challenge in eastern Victoria; it is a challenge in western Victoria as well.

We are going to have members trying to represent Nhill,
Casterton, Edenhope, Hamilton and Portland at the same time as they are
representing Werribee, Geelong and Melton.

As I alluded to earlier, the great northern region, region 6,
as proposed in the schedule to the bill, the region which will subsume North
Eastern Province, North Western Province and a fair bit of Central Highlands,
will end up encompassing Mildura, Bendigo, Wodonga and Sunbury. Can anybody
seriously propose to me that it is possible for one member of Parliament - or
indeed five members of Parliament - to effectively advocate with any detailed
knowledge of the issues that affect those expanded regions? It is beyond being a
farce; it is an insult to the intelligence of members of this place to try to
argue that point.

It is clear that the pressures members of this place will come
under will be the same as those experienced in New South Wales. In New South
Wales members elected to the upper house see no good reason to have offices in
and be involved in their communities. They represent, the community of the state
because they effectively operate out of Sydney. Their offices are in Sydney and
they have no community involvement beyond the city limits. It will be a great
shame for representation in country Victoria.

We presently have members in this place with offices in
Mildura, Hamilton, Warrnambool, Traralgon, Shepparton, Sale and until very
recently Wonthaggi - but of course there is a strong representative still in
Wonthaggi, the now member for Bass, who has just changed houses.

This will be a huge loss to rural Victoria.

Notwithstanding the suggestions that members of this place do
not have a connection with their local electorates, the reality is different. I
can testify to this: I get plenty of advice from my constituents. They seem to
know how to find me pretty easily, and I think that is true of all country
members. City members suffer the challenge that many electors do not know what
their electorate is, particularly their upper house electorate, simply because
it is less definable as a region. Country electorates are obviously more
prominent.

I do not really have any problem with fixed four-year terms in
relation to the Assembly, but I have to say, as we have already said in relation
to this debate, that it is extraordinary that the government is doing something
the New South Wales Labor government has entrenched - abolishing the two terms
of the lower house.

Issues have arisen during the course of debate on this bill
about casual vacancies. I do not imagine there will be a lot of debate in this
house about it, because it is not a matter on which there is deep disagreement,
but it should be noted that the government is proposing a system of filling
casual vacancies which involves a joint sitting of Parliament. I have had
representations from the Proportional Representation Society of Australia on
this matter. I met with Geoffrey Goode, the national vice-president of the
Proportional Representation Society of Australia, and also with Lee Naish, who
is the Victorian spokesman.

Both of those gentlemen made the point that they are
particularly concerned about the casual vacancy provisions because their view is
that the direct election requirement ought to be entrenched, and that therefore
the countback system should be introduced. I am not advocating that.

I have listened to the arguments put to me by the Proportional
Representation Society of Australia, and I believe they have some merit, but on
balance it is the view of the opposition that to maintain the equilibrium of the
Parliament the government proposals on this question should be supported,
because they will ensure that, notwithstanding the unfortunate and untimely
incidence of a casual vacancy arising, there will be no change to the political
balance of the Parliament as a whole.

That proposal has great merit and outweighs the arguments put
in relation to direct election, because the result of a countback could
significantly change the political paradigm at the time, and there is no way of
predicting with any certainty what that may be.

There is certainly a case to be argued about removing the
ability of the upper house to block supply.

I do not intend to go into that debate in any detail at this
point,

[Next
page] [New
Search]

Copyright
& Disclaimer | Privacy