Page 1245 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note that this argument was run in direct opposition to the single-member electorate system which was proposed by the Labor Party in the lead-up to the referendum in 1992. Had the voters of the ACT made the decision to adopt single-member electorates, we would have had a much higher wastage of votes than we will have under the Hare-Clark electoral system. While I have some concerns about the amendment that Mr Humphries is proposing, should this Assembly adopt it, I think that the concerns that I have are outweighed by the philosophical position from where the Hare-Clark electoral system ultimately comes.
MR HUMPHRIES (6.34): Madam Speaker, - - -
Ms Follett: Gary, give up. Sit down.
MR HUMPHRIES: All right. I am not sure where Mr Stevenson stands on this matter. I might have to address Mr Stevenson. When you say, "Give up", I assume that you are not going to vote for my amendment.
Ms Follett: Of course not.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will make a few quick comments, Madam Speaker. I have not heard any argument in principle from the Chief Minister, only an argument based on - - -
Ms Follett: Only that it was not in the referendum.
MR HUMPHRIES: Only an argument based on what the referendum options description sheet is supposed to have said.
Mr Connolly: Only your basic argument about the whole thing - that the referendum thing is sacrosanct.
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, it is sacrosanct.
Mr Connolly: Unless it is a Liberal amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not inconsistent with my amendment. My amendment, as Mr Moore rightly pointed out, is consistent with every single one of those four principles referred to under that heading of what is done in Tasmanian House of Assembly elections.
Mr Connolly: Except that they do not quite do it this way.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is not the case. Madam Speaker, I want to illustrate the point about how exhausted votes and informal votes go together. In Tasmania, for a number of years, there was a requirement that you number only three squares, 1, 2, 3. If you numbered three squares you had a formal vote in Tasmania. There were relatively relaxed formality provisions. There was public debate in Tasmania in the late 1960s and early 1970s about the level of exhausted votes. This came about because there was argument about candidates getting elected at the end of the day with numbers of votes
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .