Thread by @kevinbonham

My concerns about the proposed public funding model for elections were discussed today extensively in the House. (See ) #politaskevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/11/how-no…

I have just heard Attorney-General Archer's response and my jaw is on the floor. She has claimed the ACT is different from Tasmania because the ACT has above the line voting. It does not.

#politas

Here is a ballot paper sample from the ACT's website. There is no above the line section. There has never been one in their version of Hare-Clark

elections.act.gov.au/__data/assets/…

#politas

Look I'm sure it's just because she's being incredibly badly advised by someone who needs to be sacked but AG Archer has, in trying to refute my suggestion, misled the House and in the process wrongly implied I don't know how ACT voting works. Must correct the record or resign.

I hesitate to retweet strong swearing onto the delicate and genteel #politas hashtag but um yeah this.

https://twitter.com/koalatovmoktail/status/1590674491751149568

The ACT *originally* had above the line voting in the system it had from 1989-1992 but that was abolished in 1994. The ACT has continued to apply public funding by party without above the line voting for 8 elections over 28 years since.

Even if the ACT was forced to use per-party funding, which it hasn't been for 28 years, that would still not make per-candidate funding an even remotely good idea.

Archer's comments have also strawmanned my position by saying I have a belief that parties would "seek to have voters not vote for their own members". That is not what I have said. What I have said is that parties may seek to engineer *which* of their candidates voters support.

So after a contribution that shows a spectacular lack of research (the ACT has NEVER had above the line and Hare-Clark at the same time) the AG then attacks another member claiming that the other member hasn't done their research.

Glass houses, stones etc.

Then goes on to talk about the importance of getting facts straight in a detailed debate. Yes indeed it is and she hasn't done it.

She doesn't agree that the Bill will have the dire consequences I've foreshadowed. In terms of one of them (more successful parties getting a higher share of their votes reimbursed) this sounds like another politician who wants to disagree with the laws of mathematics.

Incidentally Labor did attempt to graft an ATL model onto Hare-Clark in the ACT in 1993. Fortunately a crossbench revolt killed it (nice work Michael Moore and Helen Szuty who were evidently not messing around on this).

(For anyone who comes across this thread but not the new post, my article has been extended.)