Page 1692 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will reference the commission’s report. Of course if you worked on the principle Mr Corbell has, every single idea in here would be embraced, but in fact that is not what happens. I turn to the rationale that has been put forward by the commission. Mr Stefaniak said, “You can hear the points of view in the argument.” He has had legal training; a number of members have.
I guess, through life, you can argue anything if you have a point where you want to get to and then you develop the arguments. Quite frankly, I am not persuaded by many of the arguments in this report. They are thin; they are not compelling; and certainly they would not persuade me as to their merit, whether I was in a political party or an independent.
The argument here is that there is no requirement or expectation that candidates listed in a non-party group have anything in common, other than a desire to be listed together. Yes, these things are theoretical, but has it ever happened? No. Could it happen with a political party? I suppose it could, in theory. It is very hypothetical and pretty unconvincing, from my point of view.
It states that the requirement in relation to political parties which involves party constitutions being made available for public inspection “enables voters to inform themselves about the policies and ideals of registered political parties and use that information to make judgements about candidates grouped together on the ballot paper and party group”. They have got to be kidding. There would not be one person in Canberra, except those involved in branch battles probably in the various parties, that would have a clue what is in the constitution.
When I was a member of the Liberal Party, we had to get a copy of it sent over because none of us had a copy. I am quite sure that if you had a 10-point quiz on the ALP constitution half the government members would not know what is in it. To say that the people of Canberra need these constitutions to sit down and inform themselves how to vote is extraordinarily naive as a concept. If that is the length of the argument, I am afraid I am very unconvinced.
We are hearing: why do ballot papers impose significant costs? Yes, they probably do, but is that the end of the world? We only have elections every four years. The cost of ACT elections in a $3 billion budget is not earth shattering. I am quite happy to see the costs.
I am not sure whether I mentioned this to Mr Green or one of the ministers, but I would like him to have double the staff so that we can get to the count a bit quicker. I am not too fussed about that area of government outlays; it is the big ticket stuff that concerns me.
I think the plan to remove non-party groupings is a retrograde step. We will still see independents grouping themselves together. They will create parties probably. There is already one that has formed out in Weston Creek. It will simply create more work for the Electoral Commission; it will not save them time. People will do it to ensure the new requirements are met.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .