Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4412 ..

MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, do you remember Mr Moore's exhortation to you to keep order?

MR SPEAKER: I am aware of standing order 37. Keep going. Proceed.

Mr Humphries: Say something.

MR WHITECROSS: I am saying a lot, if you will just listen.

Mr Humphries: Make a point.

MR WHITECROSS: I have made lots of points, Mr Humphries, and you did not like them.

Mr Humphries: Not about the Bill you have not.

MR WHITECROSS: You did not like them. Mr Speaker, the Electoral Commission, in its report, proposed that there was the possibility that you could have an alternative date of the last Saturday in October as an election date, rather than the current date in February. In my judgment, the arguments of the Electoral Commission for the October date were distinctly thin. The argument for the change of date was that 10.5 per cent of people on the roll did not vote in the election, and that contrasted with only 3.3 per cent at the Commonwealth election held the following year. The commission's argument seems to be that perhaps more electors on the roll would have voted if the election had been held at a different time. It went on to say that the reason why 2,700 of those electors did not vote was that they did not live in the ACT. I do not think that when the election is held makes much difference on whether people who do not live in the ACT vote or not. The commission said that 3,600 letters to non-voters were returned marked "Not known at this address". Mr Speaker, if they are not known at the address it is not likely that they are going to vote, whether the election is in February or October. That does not, of itself, seem to make much difference on the question of the date of the election. Also, 3,700 claimed to have a valid and sufficient reason for not voting. A lot of them stated that they were interstate or overseas, and in many cases were unaware that the election was being held.

The Electoral Commission went on to give a very good reason why people who were interstate or overseas might not realise there was an ACT election on. Mr Speaker, I know that this will be shocking to most members of this Assembly, but elections for the ACT Legislative Assembly do not command much copy in the New York Times, the Washington Post or the London Times. Indeed, they do not command much copy in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Melbourne Age. Someone who was interstate for a period, Mr Speaker, might well find themselves in the situation of not realising that there was an ACT election on. By contrast, Mr Speaker, Federal elections are quite big deals. Even if you were in Melbourne rather than Canberra, the chances are that you would realise that there was a Federal election on and therefore register a vote. So, Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the substance of the Electoral Commission's argument, which is that a number of voters did not vote, does not stand up too well in terms of an alternative date providing a better chance of electors voting.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .