Page 991 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, it has been necessary for the Government to prepare a supplementary amendment to provide for these candidates. I think it is another sign that Mr Humphries's proposed amendment is not well thought through. It has glaring flaws in it. I believe that the Government's amendment is by far the preferable course. It is fairer, it is simpler, and it does not have the unintended consequences that Mr Humphries's scheme has. I commend the Government scheme to members.
MS SZUTY (9.20): Madam Speaker, I think Mr Moore has outlined the arguments fairly well as far as he and I are concerned. It is an issue that we have considered at length. We have taken on board the Government's argument about the importance of consistency between these provisions and the public funding provisions which we will be dealing with later. However, Mr Humphries's view that this matter should be based on Tasmanian experience is very well founded. As we will be returning to other issues such as the banning of how-to-vote cards later in the debate this evening, it is an important principle to keep in mind. The Hare-Clark electoral system that we are going to introduce in the ACT will largely be modelled on the Tasmanian experience because that is where the Hare-Clark electoral system has operated in Australia.
Ms Follett has foreshadowed a Government amendment, should Mr Humphries's amendment be passed. I would like to acknowledge the work that a great number of members have done in preparing amendments to the Government's Electoral (Amendment) Bill. While the Chief Minister has pointed out an instance where Mr Humphries perhaps has not thought through his argument to the fullest extent, I think it is a credit to this Assembly that we can work together to come up with appropriate amendments which ultimately will make the Bill the best possible Bill that this Assembly can produce.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.21): Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say that it is a bit rich for the Chief Minister to refer to the glaring flaws in our amendments. The original version of supplementary amendment c. which the Chief Minister circulated was a glaring error. I pointed this error out to the Parliamentary Counsel and the matter was corrected. I think we live in glass houses and we should not throw stones. All of us are capable of some errors from time to time.
Madam Speaker, let me make it quite clear that these provisions are infinitely fairer than the ones that the Government proposes. That is why they are more complex, or at least a little bit more complex. Let me take two examples and talk about the anomalies that the Chief Minister referred to. Take two parties. Party A gets 1.8 per cent of the first preferences in an election, but its candidates get a total of 6 per cent at the point where they are excluded from the count. That party will lose its deposit under the provisions Ms Follett puts forward. Contrast that with party B which gets 2.2 per cent of first preferences, but its candidates total only 3 per cent at the point of exclusion. It is possible to say that party A has twice as much support as party B, but party A loses its deposit and party B keeps it. That seems like an anomaly to me, with great respect, Madam Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .