Page 1691 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
relation to the removal of these provisions that allow non-party groupings on the ballot paper. His speech dealt at some length with changes to the postal system and disclosure requirements, but there was a pronounced absence of justification given as to why this change is required. I hear it tonight spelt out.
I do not recall a pressing need for it. I do not remember a tablecloth-sized ballot paper in 2004 and I doubt we would have had one this time. I do not think we will. Call me cynical, but in an election year when non-major party candidates are widely tipped to be influential the government has been motivated by more than just a desire to tidy up the Electoral Act.
The bill is clearly designed to aid major parties, at the expense of independent candidates. One has to especially take into account that we have not had a New South Wales upper house experience in this territory. Our ballot papers have not become cluttered with hundreds of ungrouped candidates, as I think Mr Stefaniak said in his remarks. They are clear and easy to read; there is no confusion. As far as I am aware, none of this has been created by the presence of columns of grouped independents.
You must then ask what the motivation is of the government in seeking to have these amendments forced through, with their majority—a dangerous situation in any electoral change. Indeed, when we appoint the chief electoral officer for the ACT, there is a process of consultation so that that matter is ideally approached on a tripartisan basis. I do not know how we tackle that in future scenarios, but certainly the attempt is to create consensus because electoral matters are fundamental to the democratic process. Judicial matters are pretty crucial, I think, also to the democratic process. When you start using majorities to get your point of view across, when you are sitting with a majority of one over the very significant non-government member numbers in this place, it is cause for concern.
It is a very important bill we have tonight. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition packed it in five hours ago and went home. There are other critical pieces of legislation we are considering tonight—probably two of the most controversial pieces of legislation that have ever come into this place—and I really think all members ought to be in the place to deal with these issues.
Mr Pratt: It is none of your business.
MR MULCAHY: Mr Pratt says it is none of my business. The democratic process is a vital part of my business. If he does not believe that as a member of the Assembly, then I suggest he go and reflect on what on earth he is doing in this place.
It is telling that all non-government members oppose this part of the bill. It will pass, but only because of the ACT government’s majority. Only the ALP has expressed tonight that this is a good idea.
Mr Barr: And the Electoral Commission.
MR MULCAHY: They are not in this chamber, as I understood, in a formal capacity. Only the ALP thinks that it is a good thing to make it harder for independents to operate in the political system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .