Page 1142 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If you have relaxed formality requirements it follows that you will have more exhausted votes. To prevent votes from exhausting it is therefore in your interest to have more relaxed exhausted vote provisions, which is why we have also departed from the Tasmanian provisions in that respect. We will come back to that debate later, of course.
I might also comment that the Chief Minister suggested during her presentation speech that her provisions were quite in line, as they stood then, with provisions used for formal voting in the Senate. She was asked a question about that subsequently in question time and she stood by that view, but I hope that she acknowledges that that view was inaccurate. Those of us who have scrutineered Senate votes will know that it is not necessary to number every square below the line. It is necessary only to number 90 per cent of the squares below the line. So her original provisions were more onerous than was the case for certain Senate elections.
As I say, we support this arrangement. We cannot see a strong argument for excluding people from having a formal vote. The effect, though, is that more votes will peter out, will exhaust themselves earlier, under this arrangement, and we have to think about adjusting the plan to guard against too many people losing any say or any role at all in the election because their votes have petered out earlier.
MS SZUTY (12.26): I wish to speak very briefly and specifically to this amendment. Proposed new subsection 177(3) says:
A ballot paper is informal if -
... ... ...
(b) it has no vote recorded on it; ...
The Government's amendment seeks to delete the words "it has no vote recorded on it" and to be a little bit more explicit. It wants to say "no first preference is marked in a candidate square" and "a first preference is marked in 2 or more candidate squares". Other speakers to this amendment have drawn attention to the broader question of optional preferential voting, but I think it is pertinent to discuss the specificity of this particular amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.27): Madam Speaker, I move Government amendment No. 53. It reads:
53. Page 72, line 8, proposed new section 180, after "Schedule 3" insert "but not before the close of the poll for the election".
Proposed new section 180 is to be amended to make it clear that declaration votes admitted to further scrutiny following the preliminary scrutiny cannot be counted until after the close of the poll on polling day. I commend that to the Assembly.
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .