Page 1098 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (5.21): It is my understanding that no jurisdiction in Australia currently requires electors to produce identification or proof of address when they turn up at a polling booth. Now is not the appropriate time for this Assembly to be considering such amendments, even if we did consider that this was an appropriate step to take. As the Chief Minister has outlined in this Assembly today, the amendments would need to be much more extensive to take on board all the provisions that Mr Stevenson is thinking of. The Chief Minister also indicated that the extent of fraud is fairly minimal. I believe that we had the debate on the extent of fraud at elections last night, so I do not intend to travel over that ground again. I will be opposing Mr Stevenson's amendments.
MR STEVENSON (5.22): I covered the arguments that were raised, but as they were raised after I covered them I will bring them up again. First of all, the Chief Minister suggested that there would be enormous difficulties. We know what "enormous" means; it means bigger than huge. I suggest that there would not be enormous difficulties. There would be some inconvenience for people; there is no doubt about that. But a majority of people favour the proposal. They have a right to decide what sort of voting system they have.
As for not specifying the means of identification, I covered that. That could be covered by the regulations. I can go into fine detail on this point and, in the future, I will do so; make no mistake. But that was not a requirement. I allowed for a method of operation to cover what the electoral office considered relevant. The Chief Minister asked about voters who do not have any form of identification. You can bet your sweet life that they will not have a bank account if they did not have one prior to the regulations being brought in requiring 100 points to open an account.
The Chief Minister says that voting would become a very inconvenient process. I think voting would become a far more secure process. The Chief Minister also said that she does not believe that there is voter fraud on a significant scale. What scale is significant? Mr Moore, and subsequently Ms Szuty, were elected on the basis of one vote per polling booth, to get just inside the margin. It would not have taken much to not elect them. At the first election someone just missed out by 100 votes, as I recall. It would not have taken much to get them elected. Of course, once you have someone elected, sometimes, as in the case of Mr Moore and Ms Szuty, the preferences can pull someone else in. That is what would have happened with the Fair Elections Coalition in the election for the First Assembly.
As for forging documents, I made the point that anybody claiming that documents can be forged must acknowledge the fact that there is no requirement whatsoever at the moment. You do not have to forge a thing. That was not acknowledged by anybody else. We have a situation where a majority of people favour voting at their local polling booth and providing proof of identification. Governments in Australia have never been against putting people to enormous problems. That is when you should use the word "enormous". Businesses are being strangled by red tape all over the place, the ACT included. It is not that the Government, when it suits its purpose, is against requirements that place onerous obligations on members of the public. If it does not, it is perfectly prepared to say, "This will inconvenience people, and that is why we should not do it".
Amendments negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .