Page 1679 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is not likely that you will agree to form a non-party group with them purely as a way to give you both some small measure of separation on the ballot paper. I believe that non-party groups play an important part in the ACT’s democracy, and I propose amendments in this area.
Moving on, some of the changes to the authorisation of electoral matters seem to be common sense. Of course, with any legislation there will be those who break the law and while these changes recognise that discovering and prosecuting the offender is often difficult, sufficient penalties remain in place for the majority of offences. However, these changes are another of the recommendations by the ACT Electoral Commission review and, as I mentioned previously, making things easier administratively for the Electoral Commission is not basis enough for changing the Electoral Act.
By the way, while I am on this topic, I would like to thank Mr Green from the Electoral Commission for his meetings with us and his prompt and helpful responses to our questions. We have had many questions over the long period that we have been waiting to discuss this legislation.
The changes the government proposes to make to postal voting are said to be justified in the name of increasing privacy and efficiency. I agree that making postal voting more accessible and easier to accomplish privately is beneficial. Clause 31, which removes strict liability from section 143, is also reasonable. In light of previous debates I have participated in about the use of strict liability, I agree that its use in this case is excessive and it should be removed. I also agree with giving voters the option to apply orally as well as in writing. However, I disagree with, and have proposed amendments to, the tightening of eligibility for applying for a postal vote.
On a positive note it is good to see that the government is updating the legislation to allow for advances in technology. Clause 15 recognises that access to electronic voting is becoming more common and has a variety of benefits, not least allowing for low vision or vision impaired voters to be able to cast a secret ballot. This is currently being researched by a recent trial by the Australian Electoral Commission. Clause 103, which makes it an offence to take a photo of someone’s marked ballot paper with a mobile or digital camera, for instance, highlights that not all new technology is to the benefit of voters, and measures such as this to ensure the privacy and sanctity of the secret ballot are important.
Though I appreciate the thought and effort put into preparing this bill—and I thank Mr Corbell for meeting with me and my staff to discuss the amendments—there are several elements in the Electoral Act 1992 which required change. Not all have been covered by this bill. There are also things the government would like to change that should have been left alone. If the bill remains unamended, I will be unable to give it my support. That is, I am going to vote against the bill unless some of our amendments get through. I am pleased to see that the government’s amendments reflect some of mine, and I might have to rethink that a little.
As of yesterday morning, my office was still waiting to hear back from the government, although it has known of our concerns since last October. It was only on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .