Advertisement

Legislative Assembly increases to 25 members from the 2016 election

By 6 August 2014 21

Canberrans will have a better level of representation after legislation passed yesterday increasing the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly from 17 to 25 MLAs from the 2016 election.

With bipartisan support, the Assembly passed two bills introduced by Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, to increase representation of ACT citizens and improve representative democracy in the territory.

“Following the recommendations of the expert reference group, the Assembly has decided to increase its size from 17 to 25 members, and increase the number of electorates from three to five,” Mr Corbell said.

“As Canberra’s population has grown, it is appropriate to increase the number of representatives at a territory level to ensure the best government possible for the people of Canberra.

“As highlighted by the expert reference group, the ratio of elected representatives to the number of enrolled voters in the ACT is higher than any other state or territory in Australia. That is, there are more enrolled voters per elected representative than anywhere else Australia. The ACT has 5.6 representatives per 100,000 people compared to the national average of 26 representatives per 100,000.”

In making its recommendation to increasing the size of the Assembly, the expert reference group considered factors such as the ability of the Assembly to adequately represent the ACT community and to deliver effective government to the ACT community.

The combined effect of the Australian Capital Territory (Legislative Assembly) Bill 2014 and the Electoral Amendment Bill 2014 is to increase the membership of the assembly and the number of electorates, plus a number of consequential amendments such as changes to ballot papers.

The next step will be the redistribution of electoral boundaries, including the naming of the new electorates. This process will commence with a call for public submissions by the Redistribution Committee, chaired by the Electoral Commissioner, and will include several opportunities for public comment throughout a six to eight-month process. The final determination of the new electoral boundaries will be made by the Augmented ACT Electoral Commission.

(Simon Corbell Media Release)

Please login to post your comments
21 Responses to
Legislative Assembly increases to 25 members from the 2016 election
A_Cog 2:13 pm
06 Aug 14
#1

Yay! More worse representation!

MERC600 2:41 pm
06 Aug 14
#2

Why not go the whole hog. Lets have an upper house as well.

John Hargreaves Ex M 5:19 pm
06 Aug 14
#3

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

Holden Caulfield 5:24 pm
06 Aug 14
#4

The first sentence should read…

“Canberrans will have an increased level of representation…”

It’s a bold claim to say it will be “better”.

bikhet 5:34 pm
06 Aug 14
#5

More snouts in the trough! If the current lot are the best their parties can do, then I shudder to think what the new ones will be like.

HiddenDragon 5:53 pm
06 Aug 14
#6

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

I can’t imagine what they’re worried about – with reports of polling showing majority support for the trams, Shane will surely be re-elected by acclamation and pick up a spare quota, or two, along the way……

Maya123 6:07 pm
06 Aug 14
#7

Personally I think the ACT should have one electorate. If I want to approach someone I don’t have a clue who my so-called local politician is, but rather I would approach the person who will deal with the issue, and I would image this would be the same with many people, if not most. And one electorate would better represent the wishes of more people. Of course this isn’t favourable to Labor or Liberal, so they would not want this. It doesn’t matter that there might be people who will feel unrepresented; that isn’t important to them. It ‘s what is advantageous to them, not the electorate; it isn’t about democracy.

dungfungus 7:00 pm
06 Aug 14
#8

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

“Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!”

Don’t try and tell us that this was a surprise to you John.
It was the ACT’s worst kept secret that Canberra Labor saw this as an opportunity to wipe out The Greens electoral chances.
The Greens will still give their preferences to Labor though.

farnarkler 7:19 pm
06 Aug 14
#9

There’s about $1 million in wasted money for their salaries. Can’t wait to see what junket trips the newbies can conjure up. Get rid of this clown show, reinstate the NCDC and follow NSW for taxes, rates, etc.

astrojax 7:24 pm
06 Aug 14
#10

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

but then does an all from-two-parties parliament express the will of a majority, john? or are we better served by having a diversity of views represented in a parliament that has to work across ideas and positions to effect good governance? i think the two party domination is a poor option as an ideal and this only entrenches the likelihood of it perpetuating. maybe twenty five members but in three electorates would produce, ultimately, better politicians and so better governance of the people, for the people..?

[note: i have no alignment or affiliation with any party]

gooterz 9:01 pm
06 Aug 14
#11

In what world does it make sense to divide into 5.

Guaranteed that at least 1 will vote for the unpopular one leaving them with no representation of the active government.

Is this to scare everyone into voting Labor to avoid ending up like Tuggeranong?

A single whole of ACT will do.

rommeldog56 9:21 pm
06 Aug 14
#12

Isn’t this just a cynical ploy by both major parties to reduce the likelihood of a minor party holding the balance of power ? At ACT Taxpayer/Ratepayer expense of course !!

This will not mean better Government nor better Gov’t decision making. Just more ACT Gov’t Ministers/MLAs to push the party political line and push even more spin onto the electorate.

Politicians are like a virus, they replicate and spread. They become resistant – to public opinion. Particularly if they are ACT politicians.

Yet another example of over governance and snouts in the trough.

dungfungus 9:23 am
07 Aug 14
#13

rommeldog56 said :

Isn’t this just a cynical ploy by both major parties to reduce the likelihood of a minor party holding the balance of power ? At ACT Taxpayer/Ratepayer expense of course !!

This will not mean better Government nor better Gov’t decision making.

Just more ACT Gov’t Ministers/MLAs to push the party political line and push even more spin onto the electorate.

Politicians are like a virus, they replicate and spread. They become resistant – to public opinion. Particularly if they are ACT politicians.

Yet another example of over governance and snouts in the trough.

Correct.

housebound 6:15 pm
10 Aug 14
#14

For the first time in my life, I’m seriously considering voting informal. The usual protest vote – putting a minor party or independent first – won’t work because my vote would end up with one of Lab, Lib, Green. Labor are an appalling government, Greens are Labor stooges, and I don’t want to reward the Libs (or the other two) for their complicity in this move to line the pockets of more politicians.

Maya123 8:29 pm
10 Aug 14
#15

If 10%, 20%, etc vote for a particular person or party they should have 10%, 20%, etc members of the elected representatives. But they won’t under the five electorates planned; they will in a sense be disenfranchised; which is exactly as the two major parties plan. The fairest representation for a small place like the ACT is one electorate. But this doesn’t please the two largest parties. So for them it’s what suits them the best and damn the voters.
Housebound said they are thinking for the first time voting informally. I know how they feel, as I feel the same. If I thought enough people would do that and send a message I would do the same, also for the first time ever. Instead I will likely put the major parties last. Unfortunately I don’t think enough other people will care enough to do the same.

miz 10:40 pm
10 Aug 14
#16

Housebound, exactly. How they didn’t think of going back a step and rethinking the wasteful structure itself is beyond me, but it seems they are more interested in self-interest than what would serve the ACT best. It is obvious that separating State and federal responsibilities would provide better admin AND value for money, just as easily (thru an enactment), but hey, let’s have more snouts instead.

HenryBG 9:41 am
11 Aug 14
#17

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

I think you have a problem with mathematics.

If the sole Green in the assembly teams up with the 8 ALPers, they can together vote in legislation they agree with with their collective majority of 9/17.
The Green has cast but one vote, representing his proportion of the electorate.
The ALPers have cast their 8 votes.

Why should the Green, with just one vote, be expected to “represent the majority”?

Why is it that people who prefer being small cogs in big party machines feel so threatened by people who have so much less power within the democratic process than they do?

HenryBG 9:45 am
11 Aug 14
#18

miz said :

Housebound, exactly. How they didn’t think of going back a step and rethinking the wasteful structure itself is beyond me, but it seems they are more interested in self-interest than what would serve the ACT best. It is obvious that separating State and federal responsibilities would provide better admin AND value for money, just as easily (thru an enactment), but hey, let’s have more snouts instead.

We simply do not need our own little Westminster-style system, complete with political shenanigans and million$ wasted on staffers/advisors/policy wonks/etc…
We absolutely do not need Human Rights Commissioners and all this other wasteful, pointless bumpf that is entirely unrelated to the running of Canberra.
We need water & electricity, garbage collected, and roads maintained.
Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it. Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

davo101 2:13 pm
11 Aug 14
#19

HenryBG said :

Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it.

LOL. You think the Feds would do any better. The problem with health is that it’s a bottomless pit for money and we only have a couple of ways of rationing: by cost (doesn’t work with socialised systems) or by limiting supply (ie: waiting lists). Having the states or the Commonwealth running it doesn’t change the problem.

HenryBG said :

Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

Not entirely sure you know what the word federation means.

watto23 4:35 pm
11 Aug 14
#20

HiddenDragon said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

I can’t imagine what they’re worried about – with reports of polling showing majority support for the trams, Shane will surely be re-elected by acclamation and pick up a spare quota, or two, along the way……

Tasmania has 5 electorates of 5 and the previous gov was 11 labour, 10 Libs and 4 greens. Generally if enough people vote for a 3 party in a 5 member electorate they will get the seat. The issue is they generally don’t have the profile and people still feel they may as well vote for a major party cause that is where their vote will go. If people are responsible and know where there vote goes by number below the line the 5th person will rarely be a major party.

Also a single 25 member electorate would result in a ridiculously large ballot paper. Then again why we have ballot papers still is beyond me! If banks can look after my money then i trust that an electronic voting system can look after my vote.

HiddenDragon 4:49 pm
11 Aug 14
#21

davo101 said :

HenryBG said :

Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it.

LOL. You think the Feds would do any better. The problem with health is that it’s a bottomless pit for money and we only have a couple of ways of rationing: by cost (doesn’t work with socialised systems) or by limiting supply (ie: waiting lists). Having the states or the Commonwealth running it doesn’t change the problem.

HenryBG said :

Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

Not entirely sure you know what the word federation means.

If the Federalism Review gets anywhere, it’s surely more likely that some responsibilities will shift from the federal level to the States and Territories – which might help to keep a few more ACT Ministers busy.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.