Page 859 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It was certainly a prompt response. It mentioned that he asked for "advice regarding the suitability of any other electoral systems which may be available and appropriate to use in the ACT". The letter went on later to mention:
Concerning possible alternatives to modified d'Hondt: the Commission has consistently argued that one workable and defensible option would be the replacement of the modified d'Hondt system with a slightly altered version of the voting system used at Senate elections. In our Submission on the issue to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, we put forward a number of alterations for consideration.
None of them recommended more than one electorate. (Quorum formed) Is there any other reason? I actually put out a document called "Fraud of the Year" in early 1993. It stated:
The 'Fraud of the Year' goes to the referendum on the electoral system held in conjunction with the ACT election. Most Canberrans believe the referendum was a choice between 17 single electorates or the Hare-Clark system. It wasn't! It was really a choice (and a limited one at that) between 17 electorates and three electorates. The fact that the Hare-Clark system was going to be used in each of the three electorates is of far less importance than the number of electorates.
Canberrans were not allowed a fair choice. In our polls, we asked people to vote on four choices. Of Canberrans with a view, 53% favour a single electorate of 17 members with a good preferential voting system ...
I add that a Hare-Clark system is a good preferential voting system. I continued:
The Australian Electoral Commission endorsed this as the best system for the ACT -
as I read out in Senator Bell's speech in December. I went on to say:
Of the other three choices, the '17 single electorates' and the 'Hare-Clark' systems each received 22% of the votes, while 3% voted for the existing d'Hondt system. Instead of allowing Canberrans their three main choices, the Federal Labor and Liberal Parties joined to restrict the referendum to two of the least favoured options. Thus they not only nobbled the favourite, they refused to let it in the race!
Why was this done? To deny Canberrans the right to be fairly represented in Parliament. Instead of a candidate being elected with 5.56% of the vote, as in the 1989 and 1992 elections, small parties and independents will require either 12.5% or 16.8% of the vote in the 1995 election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .