Page 997 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: There is nothing in there that says that you cannot have above-the-line voting either.
MR HUMPHRIES: There are no above-the-line boxes shown on the ballot-paper.
Ms Follett: There are no single-candidate parties there either.
MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, yes. Madam Speaker, if Ms Follett is suggesting that this shows that you must have more than one candidate, presumably she would also argue that it shows that you must have seven candidates, because each of the two parties in the left-hand boxes has seven candidates and therefore you must have seven candidates. That obviously is ridiculous. I think, Madam Speaker, that it was clearly intended that non-party candidates should be able to group under these arrangements. I see no reason why it should not happen. Perhaps it is a device which might avoid the need for some Independent candidates to have to register a party, which might be argued in some quarters to be a contradiction in terms. I think therefore that it is important to create the flexibility in this Act to ensure that those who seek to use it to put options before the people in an election have those options preserved. I therefore commend this amendment to the Assembly.
MS SZUTY (10.02): I seek leave to move two amendments to Mr Humphries's amendment together.
Leave granted.
MS SZUTY: I move:
a. Proposed new subsection 109(2), omit the subsection.
b. Proposed new subsection 109(5), omit the subsection, substitute the following subsection:
"(5) A reference in this Act to a group of candidates in relation to an election shall be read as a reference to candidates whose names are grouped on the ballot papers in accordance with subsection (1) or (3), whichever is applicable.".
I draw the attention of members to the recently circulated amendment in my name which replaces the previously circulated amendment of some minutes ago. This amendment has been redrafted by Parliamentary Counsel. That was part of the reason for the delay. I understand what Mr Humphries is trying to do in terms of giving candidates the greatest degree of flexibility as to how they are presented to the electorate. However, I believe, Madam Speaker, that this provision would undermine the very principles of the Hare-Clark electoral system with Robson rotation that we are seeking to implement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .