Page 1138 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
52. Page 70, lines 7 to 13, proposed new subsection 177(10), omit the subsection, substitute the following subsection:
"(10) In determining whether a ballot paper is formal -
(a) a preference marked outside a candidate square shall be taken to be marked in the square if the voter's intention to indicate that preference for that candidate is clear; and
(b) subject to paragraph (3)(a), any other writing outside a candidate square shall be disregarded.".
These amendments are to proposed new subsections 177(2) and 177(10) and they are to clarify that all preferences on a ballot-paper that is otherwise formal are to be given effect to as far as the voter's intention is clear. For example, Madam Speaker, it is not uncommon for a voter to make a mistake in a candidate's square, to cross out the mistake and to mark an alternative preference adjacent to the square. These amendments will ensure that such a preference can be counted. As it stands, proposed new subsection 177(10), which makes reference to giving effect to a voter's intention as far as that intention is clear, applies only in relation to determining whether a ballot-paper is informal.
MR MOORE (12.11): Madam Speaker, this provides for a situation where a voter makes clear their intention and that intention can be carried through. It is most important. We will come to this debate later on another issue. These amendments in this Part of the Bill are to ensure that that can be done where possible. It is a principle that I think we ought to support.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.11): Madam Speaker, I also support these amendments. I think it is worth noting one point. People who scrutineer, for example, often assume that the only requirement in determining whether a vote is formal or it is not - this maybe reflects some provisions that exist, for example, at the Commonwealth level - is that the elector's intention is clear; that one is entitled to take into account a formal vote if the intention of the elector is clear. I should point out that, as I read this section, that is not quite the case. The intention is that basic formality provisions need to be met. If they are met, then, within those basic provisions, the intention as exhibited by the elector should be given effect to. Of course, those formality provisions are fundamental and must be met. I simply note that, in order to make it clear that we are not giving prominence to an elector's intentions above the formality requirements.
MR STEVENSON (12.12): Mr Humphries made the point that I felt should be made. There is one other point, when it comes to allowing the vote provided the intention of the elector is clear. In Tasmania that is not the case. If you do not mark 1 to 7 in each of the electorates, your vote is informal. The proposal here is to not follow that practice. We will be talking about that later on. I can understand why, and I think it is a reasonable thing to do, but it runs counter to what is done under Hare-Clark in Tasmania.
Amendments agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .