Page 1001 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, let me address the question of enormously long ballot-papers. I think we have forgotten the fact that there will be three electorates. Even if you had the extraordinary situation of 117 candidates that you had before, in the first ACT election, you would have on average 40 candidates, at most, standing in an electorate. That makes for a much more manageable ballot-paper, even if some of them are spread along the ballot-paper rather than down in columns.
I accept that Ms Szuty's amendments will succeed, but I do urge members to respect the provisions which do clearly appear on the referendum options description sheet with respect to group non-party candidates. I know that the Labor Party does not like the idea of such candidates having any prominence, that it would rather shovel them off to the final column on the ballot-paper and make them as hidden and as unseen as possible; but that is not what the democratic process demands, and I think that members therefore should support at least that part of my amendment.
MR STEVENSON (10.16): I agree that the referendum instructions for 1992 clearly showed grouped non-party candidates. Although it was not mentioned, as Mr Moore said, it is reasonable for people to assume that that was one of the things that were going to happen if they ticked the right-hand side of the two-choice question.
The Chief Minister talked about a genuine level of support being shown for parties. What is a genuine level of support? Is it not the case that many groups start and then build support over the years or a number of elections? Maybe they did not have a genuine level of support initially. Anyone should have the opportunity to build. The Chief Minister went on to say that, if they do not have what she terms a genuine level of support, they should not be entitled to registration and the benefits that flow from it. Proportionally they should be allowed the same benefits. If we are talking about a democratic principle, why not? Why should there be discrimination against some people who have just started to do something within a community as compared with other people who have been around for a longer time and are more recognised? That is something we should keep in mind when voting on these matters.
Amendments (Ms Szuty's amendments to Mr Humphries's amendment) agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question now is: That Mr Humphries's amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
MS SZUTY (10.18): I would like to reiterate what my colleague Mr Moore said earlier. There is provision in the referendum options description sheet for the grouping of non-party candidates. I think it is reasonable that Mr Humphries has come up with an amendment which will address this provision.
Amendment (Mr Humphries's), as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .