Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1676 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

votes of excluded candidates. Whilst that may not affect the number of seats won by a party, per se, it may well influence the members elected for that party.

I think each of us is well aware of the genesis of these amendments, namely, some of the concern that was expressed at the conclusion of the last election about the impact on some candidates of Robson rotation in the way it worked in particular instances. To some extent, there was a very significant element of chance in terms of the fortunes of particular candidates as a result of where they fell on the ticket and which candidates were excluded first and the distribution of the preferences of those excluded candidates. This debate is about an amendment that has been much discussed within the community, within this place and by everybody else who is interesting in the Hare-Clark system and the importance of Robson rotation in that system. It is a timely and significant amendment and an amendment which we will support.

The Electoral (Entrenched Provisions) Amendment Bill 2001 provides for 60 variations for columns of up to five candidates in the Ginninderra and Brindabella electorates and 420 variations for columns of seven candidates in Molonglo. I understand that the advice from those that actually do contemplate or consider issues such as this is that these additional rotations will be sufficient to give close to an even spread in the linear vote. I understand, and I take it as a matter of faith, that the addition of the 60 variations in Ginninderra and Brindabella and 420 in Molonglo will provide that reasonably even vote.

The bill is substituting a new schedule 2 to the Electoral Act, which is an entrenched provision under the Proportional Representation (Hare-Clark Entrenchment) Act 1994. Unless it is to go to a referendum, this bill will therefore require a two-thirds majority to come into effect. As I have said, Mr Speaker, Labor will support the bill, and in that context we are hopeful that there will be sufficient support with the Assembly, acknowledging that it requires a two-thirds majority to pass what I think most people in the community, anybody who follows Hare-Clark and Robson rotation, believe are necessary and timely amendments.

The Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2) will limit the number of names in a column to the number of members to be elected, so that the maximum in Molonglo under this provision will be seven names to a column, and it will be five to a column in Brindabella and Ginninderra. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that initially I was cautious about this proposal and was concerned that there may be insufficient candidates if, by way of example, there was a combination of several resignations from the Assembly and eligible replacements declining to nominate. On reflection, I acknowledge that it is unusual for there to be more nominations than vacancies.

I acknowledge also that to increase the number of candidates in a column is to increase dramatically the number of rotations. For example, simply going from seven to eight candidates in Molonglo would, I understand from advice from the Electoral Commissioner, require 840 rotations, which would make the printing of ballot papers extremely difficult and would be very impractical. I should say that I do not see parties accepting the option offered by the bill and the current act of nominating more than the maximum number of candidates and splitting the names over two columns, using a random draw. I must say that I do not think that that is a possibility that would be particularly attractive to any of the parties in this place.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .