Page 1094 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not propose an amendment at this stage. I merely note that there is some potential inconsistency in our position here, and we need to consider, at the end of the day, whether the law is better reflecting the reality rather than creating some kind of legal fiction which is impossible to fully and properly enforce.
Amendments agreed to.
MR STEVENSON (5.04), by leave: Madam Speaker, I move together amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 circulated in my name, which read as follows:
2. Page 50, line 6, proposed new subsection 129(1), after "polling day" insert ", produces evidence of his or her identity and address".
3. Page 50, line 28, proposed new subsection 131(1), after "polling day" insert ", produces evidence of his or her identification and address".
4. Page 52, line 1, proposed new subsection 132(2), after "eligible elector" insert "and on production of evidence of his or her identity and address".
These amendments are the result of one of our survey questions. The question was:
Should voters be required to show proof of identification and address (e.g. driver's licence, phone or electricity account etc) at the polling booth?
The result, from 507 people over eight suburbs, was that 66 per cent said "Yes", 32 per cent said "No", one per cent were not concerned about the issue, and one per cent said that there was not enough information. Actually, that result of 2 per cent for "Not concerned" or "Not enough information" was the lowest for any of the questions. As a general rule, that is a very low result. In other words, people have an opinion. In fact, 98 per cent of people had an opinion one way or the other. As always, I cannot say why they had that opinion. I can only say that they had that opinion. However, I can certainly say what some of their concerns may be. One of them, as I mentioned yesterday, is that anyone can go into a polling booth and say that they are someone else. It would be a little bit hard if you are of the opposite sex; but, leaving that aside, there is no real restriction on who can claim a vote.
Most people agree that a useful safeguard would be the requirement to produce identification. When I mentioned this point in the Assembly yesterday, Mr Wood said, "It is Australia Card stuff". I am a lot more concerned about the Australia Card and what it would have done in Australia if used as an identification card than Mr Wood ever has been or ever will be. It is not Australia Card stuff at all. What do you say when people make claims like that which have no logic? Why are they made? Is there a reason?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .