Page 1221 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (5.04): I notice that a lot of Mr De Domenico's attention was directed at Mr Stevenson. Perhaps his arguments about the party machine would have been far better focussed on Mr Connolly or Mr Wood. In the last few days Mr Connolly has been left relatively high and dry. This could be an opportunity, Mr Connolly, for you to do the right thing by the people of Canberra, and, more importantly, to do the right thing by Labor voters. Let Labor voters have a say rather than the party machine having the say. The reality is, Madam Speaker, that under Robson rotation, distributed fairly, and without how-to-vote cards, Labor voters who wish just to vote Labor will have their vote evenly distributed, and Labor voters who watch politics carefully and who want to vote for the best person for the job will be able to cast their vote accordingly. I suggest, Mr Connolly, that that could bode very well for you in Molonglo. There could be a very clear indication of the appreciation people have for some of the work that you have done. It could show the way that you are perceived by the electorate.
Mr Connolly: Do you want to write some of my campaign brochures?
MR MOORE: It would be a pleasure. The point that I am trying to make is that it would allow your voters to have a real say, and that is what we ought to be doing. The question here is not about having how-to-vote cards, because Labor has already conceded that there ought to be a prohibition on canvassing near polling places. The heading above proposed new section 296 is "Prohibition of canvassing near polling places". That is the heading we are talking about. Mr Humphries's amendment simply seeks to change the distance from six metres to 100 metres.
I am not so naive as to say that it is the same thing. Clearly, there is a different intention between keeping a polling place clear of canvassing and keeping party workers 100 metres away, which would have the effect of making the distribution of how-to-vote cards at polling places very awkward. It would not be worth the effort. This would still allow freedom of speech; it would still allow people to express their view. It would not be something that could be questioned in the same way as in that High Court decision. In no way would it fly in the face of the High Court decision, as I believe the Chief Minister tried to imply earlier. If that were the case, proposed new section 296 would already do so.
My colleague Ms Szuty quoted Richard Farmer. He has a great deal of experience in this field. Not only has he run campaigns for the Labor Party; he has run campaigns for the Labor Party in Tasmania. That is why choosing a quote from that person was most appropriate. It will not matter, really, whether this decision is made tonight or whether it is made later. If the decision tonight reveals a Labor/Stevenson axis in order to get how-to-vote cards for the people of Canberra, it seems to me that we will go to one election, and one election alone, with how-to-vote cards. I believe that the electorate will return a result that will allow how-to-vote cards to be banned to the extent of 100 metres from the polling booth at the following election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .