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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3770 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

debating money that flows to political parties. I very much doubt whether parties paying over $6,000 to the Electoral Commission for laminated folders inside each of 2,300 polling corrals is going to be a very good use of that money which is flowing to political parties as it is.

Another issue is the rejection by the commissioner of how - to - vote material. The bill provides that the commissioner may reject how - to - vote material submitted by candidates and groups, but it does not provide appeal rights where material is rejected. Where a candidate's or a group's material was rejected and where a candidate or group did not submit material for whatever reason - including, for example, the inability to pay the fee - that candidate or group would be considerably disadvantaged because of the absence of their how - to - vote material.

I would argue that there is also a discrimination against pre - poll and postal voters. The bill provides that how - to - vote cards are to be made available to voters at pre - poll centres from the fifth day before polling day. This would obviously unfairly discriminate against those who pre - poll during the first two weeks, when the material would not be displayed. In 1998, 26 per cent of voters voted at ACT pre - poll centres during the first two weeks of polling. Postal voters will also be denied access to these laminated cards.

In all the circumstances, members can see that there are fundamental flaws in what has been put forward. It undermines the concept of a ban on canvassing at polling booths. Its imposition would be costly. It would be detrimental to the environment. Most important of all, it would be a fundamental undermining of the integrity of the Hare - Clark electoral system. I think our system is a good system. It is going to produce fair elections in the future, as it has in the past. I do not think we are going to get advantage as a community from this new measure. It is going to complicate the process of elections. It is going to contribute to the cost.

Mr Wood: He is responsible for getting rid of the former Chief Minister more than anybody else. This is your system. You love it. It is the system that pushed the former Chief Minister out. You are to blame.

MR HUMPHRIES: In light of the fact that I am to blame for knocking off the former Chief Minister, I had better go upstairs and apologise.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.00): The Labor Party will not be supporting this bill. The range of reasons that formed our decision are not quite as broad or as dogmatic as those of the government. We have decided not to support this particular proposal in the face of a view that the Labor Party has long held and argued for that election material should be available to people at polling booths. The Labor Party did not support the ban on how - to - vote cards and the Labor Party did not support the ban on canvassing within 100 metres of polling places. We opposed those initiatives quite strenuously. We opposed them for good reason. There are significant numbers of people who receive some assistance on polling day from the availability of canvasses and how - to - vote material. We argued strongly against the laws that were introduced to proscribe that behaviour.

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