Page 1241 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
entirely excluded, but it is minimised and becomes less likely to occur. If you look at the way that this has operated in Tasmania you will see that the result there has been somewhat anomalous, but I will come back to that when the Chief Minister speaks on this matter.
I do not expect the Chief Minister to be necessarily impressed with my plea for exhausted votes to be given more priority and for that to be avoided, and to take that into account when looking at the way in which we have changed the rules with our new formality provisions. I do not expect my words to carry much weight; but I will ask her to listen to the words of Dr H.V. Evatt, who, as the Minister responsible for the Electoral Bill of 1948, had some things to say about the change to proportional representation for the Senate which was being effected by that Bill. In the course of the debate in 1948, Madam Speaker, he said:
It is not proposed to alter the existing style of the Senate ballot-paper or the provision that candidates may be grouped thereon with their names in such order within the group as they desire. Nor is it intended to vary the requirement that voters must indicate the order of their preference for all the candidates. Whilst this latter requirement might have the effect of continuing to produce a fairly high informal vote, it definitely precludes the possibly greater evil of exhausted votes - that is, votes which become exhausted in the process of transfer.
(Extension of time granted) The problem of exhausted votes is a real issue. I know that this might be an exhausting issue for some members of the Assembly, and it might appear to be very trivial; but I think the onus is on us to produce a fair and workable system which gives voters the most chance of producing a valid and effective vote. I do not see the argument for allowing a vote to exhaust any sooner than it needs to. There is no suggestion that I have heard that what I put forward is unfair. I have heard the suggestion that it is complex, and I concede that. I have also heard the suggestion that it is not used in Tasmania, and I also concede that.
I note that Dr Evatt, when introducing his provisions for the Senate in 1948, referred to the fact that the system he was using was the one recommended by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia. I should point out that the system that I am proposing here is the one recommended by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia also. It is the standard provision that they suggest, and have suggested for quite some time, and it constitutes a fairer system than the alternative which we have before us. It is also a very essential system, given the changes we have made. I do not know why the ALP is happy to see those sorts of exhausted votes go down the drain. I certainly am not. I hope that the Assembly will support the concept of giving voters the maximum chance to employ the greatest effectiveness and the longest life of their votes in the course of the count.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .