Page 539 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The advantage of removing how-to-vote cards under the Hare-Clark system, I think, will be of most benefit to the two major parties. With how-to-vote cards, what is bound to happen is that members of the parties will be competing with each other, by the nature of the system, in order to gain votes. I think that will be very awkward and will require a plethora of how-to-vote cards, much worse than we have seen over the last two elections.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the great loser in this will be the trees; there will be no winners. In fact, the people who probably stand to get most benefit out of using how-to-vote cards will be people like me who can get workers out into the polling booths but who do not have to go into conflict with other members of the same grouping or the same party. I think that an environmental approach by this Assembly would be to remove the use of how-to-vote cards. However, I do distinguish that from being an integral part of the Hare-Clark system as it is used in Tasmania.
Why did I raise the issue of the Australian Electoral Commission? It seemed to me that during the first and second ACT elections there were many negative statements made by various members of the Labor Party about the way the Australian Electoral Commission handled the counting of votes and the election as a whole. I think those statements were unjustified. I think that the clearest example of that was when David Wedgwood called for a recount of a number of votes. I pointed out to him, as did others, and as did the Electoral Commission, that that would be unnecessary. Indeed, when those votes were finally recounted it proved just how accurately the Australian Electoral Commission had counted them and how well they had carried out their function.
Mr Cornwell: Did you declare your interest, Mr Moore?
MR MOORE: Mr Cornwell interjects and asks: Did I declare my interest in this? I do not think it was necessary. I think members here are very aware of just how important it was to me that the Electoral Commission did carry out their work in the most accurate way possible. In fact, we had scrutineers at all those places for quite a long time and they were watching very carefully just how well the Australian Electoral Commission carried out its function and its duties. Therefore, I have no difficulty in saying that the first people we should consider to set up the new ACT electoral system are those in the Australian Electoral Commission, should they be willing to do so. That is why there is a slight modification to the MPI as it appears on the paper in front of you when compared with the motion that I have foreshadowed that I shall seek leave to put.
The next item that needs to be dealt with is the fair distribution of seats. I think that we expect to see seats distributed in the order of five, five and seven in three electorates. That being the case, we need an independent group to determine where the seven seats should belong. For example, should they take in Tuggeranong or should the seven seats area go through central Canberra? This ought be done at arm's length, and I guess nobody would doubt that. I think that the Australian Electoral Commission is an appropriate body to deal with that at arm's length and to make recommendations accordingly. A fair distribution of seats is an important part of any electoral system, as we have seen right across Australia, to ensure that there is no attempt at gerrymander.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .