Page 998 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that the grouping of single candidates together on the ballot-paper is fair and reasonable and reflects the setting out as indicated in the Australian Electoral Commission's referendum options booklet, as Ms Follett has mentioned in the debate. The acceptance of my amendments will lead to my acceptance of the remainder of Mr Humphries's amendment which seeks to enable non-party candidates to be grouped on the ballot-paper.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.03): Madam Speaker, I would like to address both of the matters that are before us. I think it is important that both be addressed. On the question of single-candidate party columns, the amendment which Mr Humphries has moved, and which Ms Szuty has opposed with her subsequent amendment, would, I believe, be a complete departure from the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system, and it would definitely be inconsistent with the referendum options description sheet.
There are some points that need to be made about this proposal. The amendment, if it were passed, would give parties an even further advantage over Independents in that it would allow them to have single-candidate columns. This is a nonsense, in my view. If party candidates can be listed in one-candidate columns, why could not Independent candidates be given one column per candidate, as they were under the modified d'Hondt system? Of course, as members know, if that were to happen, the size of the ballot-paper and the amount of wasted blank space on that ballot-paper would be phenomenal. It would increase enormously and would give us the same sort of situation that we had under the modified d'Hondt ballot-paper in 1989.
I consider that this single-candidate party idea of Mr Humphries's is put forward as a way for parties to avoid the effects of Robson rotation. That clearly is why it has been put forward. Party candidates who took advantage of this provision would be the only candidates who appeared on every ballot-paper in the same position. It is clearly, Mr Humphries, a rort of the Hare-Clark Robson rotation system.
Mr Humphries: Oh, come on, Rosemary!
MS FOLLETT: It is. I want also to address the question of grouping non-party candidates on ballot-papers as well. Madam Speaker, I have said on many occasions that the referendum options description sheet was somewhat ambiguous on this subject. There is something of an ambiguity between the illustration and the narrative in the referendum options description sheet. I do not believe that there is any demonstrable demand from non-party candidates wishing to be grouped on ballot-papers. No non-party groups have contested any Senate election in the ACT from 1984 onwards, when party affiliations were first printed on ballot-papers. Non-party groups were not allowed in the 1989 or 1992 ACT elections, and that was not a point of contention at either of those elections - certainly not that I know of. The amendment as proposed would allow non-party candidates to be grouped on the ballot-paper by consent, and this would be consistent with the referendum options description sheet and the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system and the Senate system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .