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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2073 ..

major parties and individuals in major parties—to anyone or any grouping in our system. Again, I think that is eminently fair. The Liberal Party will be opposing this amendment.

MRS CROSS (11.33): The Chief Minister seems to think that the electorate and the people in the community are stupid. I wonder if people in the community really know what he thinks of them. He thinks that they could become confused and that there would be uncertainty with the size of the ballot paper. Any member who thinks that those in the community cannot tell the difference between Independents and others on a ballot paper or where to find them must think that they are stupid. It is interesting that Bogey Musidlak also commented on this. He said:

… the government’s proposal to do away with columns on the ballot-paper for groups of non-party candidates. Just because this was amongst things recommended by the ACT Electoral Commission in its review of the Electoral Act after the 2001 elections does not make it a desirable move.

The Follett Government tried to do the same thing at the same time as it attempted to white-ant Robson Rotation. As soon as the television lenses focused on the illustration of a sample ballot-paper in the referendum options booklet sent to electors in 1992, claims of this all being consistent with the Hare-Clark description were blown out of the water.

It is interesting that the Chief Minister is hiding behind the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, some of which are valid, some of which are good. I started to question the validity of some of these recommendations when I read that he had a concern with the size of the ballot paper.

Indonesia has just had its first proper democratic election. It has over 100 million voters and has a very lengthy ballot paper. The voters were not confused; they knew how to use it. In fact, they do not have as high a standard of education as we do per capita, yet they managed to survive. Given that Canberra has a high standard of living, with the most educated population per capita of any other state or territory in Australia—that is something the Chief Minister probably should know, but he might have forgotten about it—I think the community would be able to distinguish the difference between parties and Independents and others on a ballot paper, no matter how long the ballot paper is. New South Wales, which went to an election last year, had a huge ballot paper. Anyone who has a concern and who makes a recommendation would be simply making a self-serving recommendation. They are only thinking of themselves, of the inconvenience to them, which undermines the democratic process.

To try to control the size of a ballot paper and how everything is grouped undermines the democratic process. I will be moving an amendment later, which does not disadvantage those in the community who are not sitting members, in order to create a level playing field. As the Chief Minister said earlier, one of his motivations is to create a level playing field. The Chief Minister’s definition of a level playing field is anything that benefits the ALP in trying to win majority government.

MS TUCKER (11.36): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. All current sitting members have an in-built head start in being known—at least a little—to people in the electorate through the publicity around their work as members. Therefore, it was

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