Page 1161 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I realise that that is an arrangement entered into for simplicity. It assumes that, in a sense, non-party groups behave just like parties, but that is an assumption which may not be borne out in practice. Many non-party groups would prefer to group themselves together on the ballot-paper only for the purposes of being easily identified on the ballot-paper and because they have some common interest. They may not have any other operational connection or function or relationship. Those parties might campaign quite independently of each other, with no connection other than the fact that they appear together on the ballot-paper. For example, environmental groups might have candidates and might put forward their names but not actually group together in any sense other than on the ballot-paper.
I accept that this is a problem which is difficult to resolve. It flows from the fact that we do have these arrangements in place to allow people to group on the ballot-paper. I would suggest that we should keep this under review and ensure that we do not provide for arrangements which are effectively unworkable and which cause all sorts of deeming provisions - provisions which cause people to commit offences or to get into trouble for the purposes of accounting which would be avoidable by having some other arrangements.
MR STEVENSON (1.37): One of the questions we asked was to do with the layout of the ballot-paper. The question was:
Should ballot papers provide for: (read A. to D., then tick one box only)
A. A column for each party, listing that party's candidates?
B. A column for each group of non-party candidates?
C. A column for each party and non-party group? (this would select both A. and B. above)
D. No columns for anyone, with the names of all candidates to be printed at random?
There were interesting results on that question. They were as follows: A column for each party, listing the candidates, 34 per cent; a column for non-party candidates, 3 per cent; a column for each party and non-party candidates, 28 per cent; no columns, names at random, 22 per cent. Six per cent were not concerned with the question and 7 per cent said that there was not enough information to make a decision.
There is a problem when you ask multiple choice questions without allowing for preferential voting. As I have mentioned before, the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill that will give Canberrans direct democracy allows for that. Other groups can put another question onto a referendum. The allowance for that is there. Also, there is preferential voting for questions. The difficulty with just asking four questions is what to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .