Page 1008 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which is in the electorate of Molonglo, with the Tuggeranong Parkway in between; whereas that voter might normally vote at the Chifley polling place, which might physically be further away as the crow flies than the Waramanga polling place. There are real difficulties here.
It is not clear to me why Mr Stevenson wants to make it harder for the voters, and much more complicated for the electoral officers as well, by moving this proposed amendment. It would have the effect of creating a great deal of confusion on polling day - something which is to be avoided, if at all possible - particularly with the new electoral boundaries and a new system. Why make it even harder? The result inevitably would be that many voters would be turned away from polling places and instructed to go to another polling place. We know how they would feel about that. Voting would become a very inconvenient process for many voters, and I believe that that would result in a lower formal vote. Administration of the scheme would be very difficult. Electoral rolls would have to be prepared for each polling place, and it is likely that such a process would assign voters to polling places that they would not consider to be their closest polling place. Again, that would lead to confusion. How would they know before they got there that it was not their nearest polling place?
I appreciate Mr Stevenson's intention, which is to reduce the opportunity for fraudulent voting; but, Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that fraudulent voting on a significant scale takes place in the ACT - none whatsoever. For the sake of attempting to fix what is a non-evident problem, I think that Mr Stevenson's proposal would cause a great deal of confusion and inconvenience, and would, in effect, lead to fewer voters registering a vote on ACT election day.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.38): Madam Speaker, my party also does not support this amendment. I must say, though, that Mr Stevenson has a legitimate interest in ensuring that fraud is avoided in the operation of our electoral system. As the Chief Minister has noted, there is no evidence of any significant voting fraud at present; but it is quite possible now for people to vote throughout an electorate, particularly a Federal electorate, if they choose to pretend that they are someone else. For example, if they pick someone's name out of the obituary notices, and roll up and say that they are that person, they can, potentially, vote all over a particular electorate. I must say that I really wonder why a person would bother to do such a thing. I know from experience as a Federal candidate that you do well to get to 50 booths in one day, starting first thing in the morning and stopping at 6 o'clock at night. If you were to vote at 50 different booths you would get a grand total of 50 votes out of 170,000-odd votes. It is not really all that worth while. Of course, with the chance of being caught and going to gaol for your trouble, it would not seem to be worth it. I cannot see the motivation for engaging in that kind of thing.
However, if it transpires that there are significant levels of multiple voting as a result of the implementation of these provisions - I am sure that it would not be enough to change the outcome of an election - I think we should come back and re-examine these proposals of Mr Stevenson's. Obviously, a measure of the kind that the Government has put forward, which allows one to vote anywhere in the Territory, does, if only marginally, increase the capacity of a person to vote fraudulently if they wish to. Whereas a person might be well known in the Tuggeranong Valley, for example, and might be running
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .