Page 4676 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
mark on the ballot-paper had put in a valid vote; when there was no doubt about the intention of their vote it was counted. It is very important that votes like that should be counted.
With that in mind, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I suggest that this Assembly call on the Federal Parliament to discard the discredited d'Hondt system and provide the Senate electoral system for the 1992 ACT Legislative Assembly election, as recommended by the Australian Electoral Commission. I say "as recommended by the Australian Electoral Commission" because that includes that minor modification that they talk about. The Federal Parliament has time to implement it. I believe that the Australian Electoral Commission, which has responsibility for carrying on the work, would be delighted with us taking up their recommendation. Any argument that we are getting too close to be able to facilitate this would not hold any water. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker and members, I commend this matter to you.
MR STEFANIAK (3.37): I think this is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately for Mr Moore and perhaps this Assembly if it were minded to do anything, I doubt that anyone would take any notice at this late stage. But, speaking personally, I think the Senate electoral system for a 17-member electorate is accepted and understood by the vast majority of people in the Territory and Australia. Indeed, the modified d'Hondt system is very similar in many ways to the Senate electoral system. If we were to have 17 members at large representing Canberra, I personally think the Senate electoral system would be the best one for it, rather than some other system which is used overseas and which certainly caused a number of problems last time round and which no doubt will again.
I tend to think the electoral office was perhaps a bit slow, maybe deliberately, in counting the vote, to show what a problem the modified d'Hondt system was. Apart from next time, we will not have it again.
I think there is a lot of merit in Mr Moore's discussion, and I privately would support that type of system, as I always have. Speaking personally, I wonder whether we could put a Robson rotation in that or even in the modified d'Hondt system, which I would love to see this time round. I might get back next time if that were the case. I might get back anyway, the way this Government is going. Who knows?
Mr Wood: Oh, no; come on! That is our line.
MR STEFANIAK: You are probably right, Willie. Even if you screw up monumentally as a government, No. 3 looks pretty safe for Labor. I think it is a pity too that, concurrent with the 15 February election, we will have a referendum to pick what system we have. It probably would have been much
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .