Page 1140 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (12.16): Madam Speaker, I think this is a very important amendment. We need to distinguish between what happens as far as voting goes, and instructions on voting, and what happens in terms of having a sensible and reasonable way of assessing what people have tried to do. In any democratic society we ought to be trying to allow people to cast a vote if they possibly can, and if we possibly can recognise that vote we ought to recognise it. That is the principle that we are dealing with.
We also have in our referendum description sheet a description of how voters must be instructed to vote, and that is being followed. The Chief Minister, in turn, refers to proposed new section 290, which provides a penalty for people who encourage others to vote in any way other than in accordance with the instructions. It is really not a matter of how we are asking people to vote; it is really a matter of whether we are understanding enough when people make a mistake. That is really what this is about. If their voting intention is clear, Madam Speaker, we would be disenfranchising them if we did not take into account that intention.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that we have a duty to ensure that we can enfranchise as many people as possible. That is why I believe that this is an important amendment, and it is consistent with the referendum description sheet. I have heard Mr Stevenson argue that it is not consistent, and he wishes to carry through a black and white argument on this issue. Like most of the discussion that comes before this house, there are very few things in life that fit into a category of black and white. Here we have the opportunity to ensure that we can enfranchise as many people as possible, and we ought to proceed in that way.
MR STEVENSON (12.19): I will correct what Mr Moore thought I said. I did not say that it was not consistent. I said, as other members would know if they were listening, that it was not consistent with the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system, and it is not. In Tasmania - I will repeat it for Mr Moore - you are required to vote 1 to 7. If you do not do that in any of the electorates your vote is informal. We are going to propose that you can vote apart from that. So it is not consistent with the Tasmanian system, and that is what I said.
The other point is, as I said earlier, that I agree with the change. However, I think it is important to say what the description sheet says. It says:
Instructions on the ballot paper will require voters to show preferences (1, 2 and so on) for as many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled in the electorate concerned.
We say that we are going to require it on the ballot-paper, but we do not really mean that they will have to do that; we will allow them to do something else, unlike what they have in Tasmania. The description sheet goes on to say something that makes it a bit stronger. It then says:
Voters will have the option of showing as many further preferences as they wish.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .