Page 1007 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As members know, I foreshadowed a second amendment that would require voters to show proof of identification immediately before they vote, and I will come to that in a moment. We need to make sure that people cannot vote early and often. Are there any problems with that? Yes, there are. It would make it a little more difficult for some people when they vote. They would have to vote at the polling booth nearest their home, unless they put in a postal vote. If they put in a postal vote or a declaration vote, that would take more of the time of polling booth staff. We would need to make a small investment; we would need to work out a few things. There would need to be some advertising to let people know that what most people in Canberra want is going to be done. That is all true. The importance of making sure that this is covered far outweighs any slight increase in the resources allocated.
MR MOORE (10.32): Madam Speaker, with reference, first of all, to Mr Stevenson's polling, I will be much more inclined to believe his polls if he goes out and he asks the electors, "Should a person who was elected under the banner to abolish self-government resign?", and then lives by the result. When he does that he will have a little more credibility. We know that he is not going to ask that question, Madam Speaker. He asks specific questions to get the answers he wants. If we were to accept Mr Stevenson's amendment requiring an elector to vote at the polling place nearest his address, I can see an awkward situation developing, Madam Speaker. Some people's houses fit in the middle, between two polling places. The administrative difficulties could be resolved only by first of all determining who was nearest which polling booth. The administration of the system that Mr Stevenson was talking about would be quite extensive.
Since Mr Stevenson has drawn attention to a further amendment, Madam Speaker, perhaps I can speak to it now rather than later. He talks about providing evidence of identity and address. It seems to me that we are going to have to define what we consider as evidence. Is it evidence of my identity if I write out, "I am Michael Moore."? I think the problem that Mr Stevenson is trying to address by these amendments, the problem of people voting early and voting often, applies more in places where they do not have compulsory voting. Technically, we do not have compulsory voting; we have compulsory attendance at a polling place. Where that is not the case you are more likely to have the sort of problem that I think Mr Stevenson is trying to address. It seems to me that this is an overreaction to a problem that we do not appear to have.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.34): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing Mr Stevenson's amendment. I want to add to the comments made by other members a couple of specific difficulties. One of the problems that I have with Mr Stevenson's amendment, which proposes that a voter vote only at the polling place nearest their home address, is that there is no indication of how you measure nearest. As we know, in the ACT, nearest as the crow flies can be very different from nearest by road. I think that is an obvious complication.
There would also be obvious complications, particularly with the new electoral boundaries, for both the voters and the electoral officials. I would like to give you an illustration. The polling place nearest an elector's address as the crow flies, as I say, may not be the most convenient for a particular voter. For example, the nearest polling place to a voter in Chifley, which is in the electorate of Brindabella, may well be in Waramanga,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .