Page 1698 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the purpose of what Mr Corbell proposes here today: he is going to disadvantage a group of ACT citizens. That is what the effect of this will be. The Labor Party—the party of equity, the party of human rights—wants everybody to be equal as long as they are not as equal as Labor Party candidates when it comes to election day.
What does Mr Green have to say? What does he speak about in his article? I will read bits of it. I refer people to the website; they can find it there if they want to read it all. Or I am happy to share this copy when I finish. He says:
At the 2004 election, the Stanhope Labor government became the first ACT administration to be elected with a majority … As a result, the Stanhope government is the first in the ACT’s history to be able to pass legislation without having to compromise on amendments put up by the Opposition or the Assembly cross-benchers.
One bill where this will be important is the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced in August 2007. This bill, soon to be debated in the Assembly, includes a provision to change the way non-party candidates appear on the ballot paper. If passed it will become harder for Independents to be elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly.
Let me read that again:
If passed it will become harder for Independents to be elected to the ACT Assembly.
What happens on the fairness test? The minister signed off on the human rights certification—”This will uphold people’s human rights”—but here is an independent commentator who says:
If passed it will become harder for Independents to be elected to the ACT Assembly.
Mr Green goes on to talk about the ACT and its political system and how parties are registered. He then looks at the proposed changes. He says:
The proposed changes remove the provision that allows Independents to be grouped on the ballot paper. The Stanhope government attempted to make the same change in 2003, but then lacking an Assembly majority, it was blocked by the opposition and minor parties.
Let us look at the home of the Hare-Clark system, Tasmania, and see what they did. The article says:
A similar provision was implemented in the Tasmanian Electoral Act before the 2006 Tasmanian election. However, the Tasmanian change was more democratic than the ACT proposal …
So more democracy in Tasmania than currently exists in the ACT—denied. The article continues:
… as it simply applied a tougher test—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .