Page 1215 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the very cheap option of a how-to-vote card. In fact, it is amongst the cheapest methods of advertising a political party that I am aware of. It is also a fact that how-to-vote cards have been extensively recycled, at least in this Territory, so I do not believe that the environmental aspect holds good. In fact, you can print your how-to-vote cards on recycled paper if you so wish. I think that the environmental question that has been raised is a bit of a furphy.
Madam Speaker, I would ask members to recall also that at the time when television advertising by political parties was banned there was an arrangement whereby television stations were required, at no cost to the parties, to put to air a certain amount of political advertising. That advertising related to the level of public support that parties had received in previous elections. It is my recollection that during the 1992 election many of the parties had five-minute spots on television. Certainly the Labor Party did, the Liberals did, and the Residents Rally did. I think the No Self Government Party did also, but I am not too certain about that. That was all called free time, although, of course, it was not free to the wider public. I do not accept that there is the valid comparison that Mr Humphries was making.
It has been my experience, Madam Speaker, that a great many people rely on a how-to-vote card. In the polling places that I have staffed over many, many years and many, many elections, I have certainly been aware of how valuable those how-to-vote cards are to many voters; not just to people who know how they want to vote but need to know how to do it, but also to people who, for instance, are not really at home with the English language. That how-to-vote card does provide you with an option of giving information to voters in other languages. That is an option that I have seen taken up many times, and it is much appreciated by voters.
Madam Speaker, I think it is very much in keeping now with the views expressed by the High Court when they overturned the Commonwealth's ban on electronic advertising that this right of people to communicate political information ought now to be respected. The right also of people to receive political information is very important. In fact, it is a fundamental right that is essential to a healthy democracy. When you weigh a person's right to be informed against the minor inconvenience that some people experience in running the gauntlet of party workers handing out how-to-vote cards, I think that the freedom of information and the right to information arguments must win out at all times.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose Mr Humphries's amendment. I think that it is a major departure from the usual electoral process as it has been experienced in this Territory. I do think also, Madam Speaker, that, with a new electoral system, people are going to need as much information as they can get their hands on in order to cast a valid vote. I know that there are complications with the Robson rotation system; but, as I say, I do not believe that those complications are a valid reason to ban how-to-vote cards.
I find it rather strange that Mr Humphries's amendment, rather than seeking to ban how-to-vote cards, seeks to keep them outside a 100-metre perimeter of the polling places. I think that this is a very hypocritical proposal on behalf of the Opposition. If they want to ban how-to-vote cards, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and just say so? To impose a 100-metre limit seems to me to beg the question, "How can people get over that 100-metre limit?". What sort of an arrangement
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .