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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4170 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Turning to Dr Kirschbaum's paper, I generally agree with much of what he says, but I am unsure about other things that he says. I am not greatly encouraged by the fact that throughout the paper he misspells the phrase "Hare-Clark" - a slight problem, I would have thought, for someone writing at length on improving the system. Putting that to one side, I also have to say I strongly disagree with his conclusions on the effect of the donkey vote in a number of cases, particularly in the case of the countback in Brindabella early this year. My view is that it is quite clearly not the case that the donkey vote caused the outcome that was achieved in that case.

The issue that is focused on here is whether this Kirschbaum twist on the Robson rotation will achieve a better outcome in future elections, whether it will effectively eliminate the donkey vote. Mr Speaker, on the face of this proposal from the Greens, it does appear to address the donkey vote by further randomising the votes that are cast through donkey voting to particular lower order candidates in an election. I think it is also important to ensure, if we are going to change the fundamentals of the Hare-Clark system, that the changes do not themselves produce other anomalies.

In a paper to me by another commentator on the electoral system in the ACT, the point has been made that you can produce an apparently anomalous outcome by the use of the Kirschbaum twist on the Robson rotation. It is possible, for example, for there to be three candidates with approximately equal primary votes in a particular electorate and for there to be a fourth candidate from that party eliminated. Because that eliminated candidate's vote is being split equally between two of the remaining three candidates, it is possible for the effect of that to be to eliminate the third candidate, who actually is the leading candidate, the front running candidate.

I do not want to give figures because it can be very confusing; but, if you have three candidates, one of them in the lead, with the distribution of the fourth candidate's preferences between the other two, resulting in them overtaking that leading candidate, you would end up with the leading candidate actually being eliminated under that system because he would be the next candidate to have his votes excluded. Under the system as it now operates, that leading candidate could not be excluded under the process used presently to exclude a candidate with a single rotation affecting that eliminated candidate's flow-on of preferences.

Mr Berry: We have the solution.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, I am sure you have, Mr Berry; take it out the back and shoot it. That is your solution. Mr Speaker, I do not say to the Assembly that I am certain that the Kirschbaum proposal is not the right one. It may well be the right solution to the problem. It certainly seems to be fair, and it may be that the anomaly that I have drawn attention to is simply a counteranomaly to the one that we see in operation with the present system and that was alleged to have occurred at the last election.

Mr Speaker, I do not propose to say to the Assembly one way or the other, whether this proposal might or might not work. I will say that, in light of the doubt about it, a much better arrangement is to refer the issue to a standing committee on electoral matters which the commissioner has recommended, and the Assembly appears to have accepted, should be established after the next election. I am confident that it will be. I hope that that

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