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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1922 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

work with your staff as well, if you lose this amendment, to make it fairer and more equitable.

When I listened to Mr Stanhope the day before yesterday I thought he had a point. I hope that other members listen sometimes during this debate and say, "Yes, there is a point there. Perhaps we do need to do something about it." Maybe the solution is here and maybe it is not, but let us work on getting sensible and equitable solutions to these problems.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (8.41): Mr Speaker, this amendment would require applicants for registration of ballot groups to prove that the ballot group had at least 100 members who are electors on the electoral roll. That would require a ballot group to satisfy the same membership requirements as parties. The only difference between the two categories would be that a ballot group would not be required to have a constitution, and a ballot group could not use the word party in its name. This would prevent a non-party MLA from registering a ballot group name for use on ballot papers without having the support of at least 100 electors who are prepared to become members of the ballot group. I am amazed in a way that the Greens are putting it up. I suppose they are a party with more than 100 people, and again I think we are seeing self-interest come in here.

The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment. We are reasonably comfortable with the non-party groupings. Mr Moore raised a very good point and a fair point. I thought he was moving amendments to this effect.

Mr Moore: I was trying to get it ready.

MR STEFANIAK: You were trying. It probably means, Michael, that we are opposed to all the rest of your amendments, but anyway. He gave a wonderful example of Derek Hill and the late Cheryl Hill, who was a tireless campaigner and a former member of our party but went Independent with her husband. Yes, why on earth shouldn't the Hill group be grouped just like the Osborne Independents, or the Greens, or the Liberals, or the Labors or anything else? I think Mr Moore raised a very valid point. I think that would assist the legislation if and when he brings something forward to that effect.

Mr Speaker, we will be opposing Ms Tucker's amendment here, and indeed her amendments 2 and 3 which are consequential on amendment No 1.

By the way, Mr Green has pointed out to me that when we go back in relation to this legislation, as a result of the vote on clause 9, clause 10 is consequential to clause 9, and it should also be negatived. I make that point.

MR SPEAKER: That will be dealt with at the end of this piece of legislation, if we ever get there.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes.

Mr Moore: I expect we will be there before dawn.

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