This question was asked on 13/08/2014 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the original contribution here.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.13 p.m.]: I support the amendments move by my colleague Dr John Kaye. The title “Dr John Kaye” should answer the Hon. Greg Pearce’s earlier question. I note that the Government simply says that the amendment is not necessary: “Don’t worry, the spirit of one person one vote and that great democratic spirit that informs the Government we certainly will protect. We’ll protect these institutions from some kind of undemocratic gerrymander.”
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: And rapacious vice-chancellors.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Or indeed from rapacious vice-chancellors. But of course this week this same Government seeks to dilute the very principle of one person one vote in local government. Indeed, it wants to give corporations multiple votes in local government elections. On one hand this Government says it supports the principle of one person one vote and says, “Don’t you worry about it, nothing to be suspicious about here”, yet on the other hand it would entitle property owners to have multiple votes across the State under the Local Government Act. If a person were a director of multiple corporations with multiple property holdings, he could have a hundred or more votes across New South Wales under this Government’s wonderful vision of democracy in local government.
Mr Scot MacDonald: Hear, hear!
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the “Hear, hear!” from Mr Scot MacDonald sitting at the back. When the Government says, “Don’t you worry. Don’t be suspicious. There’s nothing to look at here and we don’t need these amendments to protect genuine democracy within the university sector”, I am deeply suspicious. The more suspicious, the more we hear the Government say, “Don’t you worry, we believe this.” This Government has a history of saying one thing one day and then saying another thing another day. In this Chamber the Government says that it supports universities and democracies—I do not doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary genuinely supports democracy within the higher education sector—but, of course, a large Right wing Cabinet controls this Government and it has little interest with these niceties of democracy. One day they say to the public, “We support democracy in the university sector” and we pass this bill, then on another day they will be perfectly happy to see democratic rights within universities removed. The Government has a history of this kind of backtracking tergiversation. To that extent I support this amendment.