Page 992 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me draw some conclusions about why the Labor Party wants these amendments. The Labor Party wants a party based system where it can protect certain candidates on its ticket who are not meant to be candidates who attract many votes. We have all read the newspapers. We all know that the Labor Party's intention is to put forward a number of A list candidates who will have prominence and funding and support from the party machine, and a B list of candidates who will have no support and no prominence and no funding. Let us be quite clear; that is a device to avoid the operation of the Robson rotation.
This Government cannot live with the harsh reality of the full choice that Robson rotation gives to people. Therefore it is insistent that that choice be limited as much as possible by making sure that certain candidates do not have the opportunity to overtake the anointed or preferred candidates. To achieve that, they somehow have to protect those non-preferred candidates from losing their deposits. So they shield those candidates by throwing them in with the votes of those candidates who are elected, the preferred candidates, and say that, even if candidates in the B list get so few votes that they do not warrant return of deposit under the 2 per cent rule that would apply to individuals, still they are entitled to the return of their deposit because they are protected by the A list candidates. Madam Speaker, that does not work. If the party wants to put forward candidates and give them no exposure, no prominence, it should take the consequence for which the legislation is designed, which is that those candidates lose their deposits. That is the natural outcome and consequence, and that should be what this Government and this party opposite should be accepting.
Question put:
That the amendments (Ms Follett's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 8 NOES, 9
Mr Berry Mrs Carnell
Mr Connolly Mr Cornwell
Ms Ellis Mr De Domenico
Ms Follett Mr Humphries
Mrs Grassby Mr Kaine
Mr Lamont Mr Moore
Ms McRae Mr Stevenson
Mr Wood Ms Szuty
Mr Westende
Question so resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .