Debate on govt's electoral reform bill has moved to the area of much interest to me, public funding (S132). The Greens are now moving an amendment to remove the proposed 4% threshhold for public funding entirely (I support keeping it but to parties not candidates). #politas
There is a valid argument for a threshhold of some sort that isn't money-saving - discourage unnecessary proliferation of uncompetitive candidates/parties. Anyway, amendment defeated without division.
Labor now moving amendments to change from per-candidate funding to per-party funding. I support this change very strongly (there may be some discussion about exact wording.)
Large chunks of kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/11/how-no… now being read into Hansard by @EllaHaddadMP (thankyou)
Attorney-General is saying I have not looked at application to 35 seats. That is again incorrect as I have done so and discussed some outcomes with her staff.
Attorney-General Archer currently saying the Govt is going to pass the Bill with this current defective model intact. That will oblige me to write to the LegCo, can I be paid for my time thankyou? Perhaps by pronouncing my surname correctly in future?
. @CassyOConnorMP supported the amendment and raised issues re INDs - which caused me to think that there might be scope for treating non-party groups like parties.
Amendment was lost without division in anticipation of Govt amending Bill in the LegCo. (Sigh.)
Amendment was lost without division in anticipation of Govt amending Bill in the LegCo. (Sigh.)
@CassyOConnorMP Greens now moving to replace the $6 rate with the Commonwealth rate (though intended to tie this to scrapping the 4% threshhold which has already been defeated.)
Division on the second of the defective clauses standing part of the Bill with Greens and @KrisJJohnston against and Labor and Liberal for (but noting above re intent to amend in LegCo).
The Bill has passed the lower house without amendment. Off to the panelbeaters.
Now on to the government's other electoral bill, Electoral Matters Miscellaneous Amendments. There is a lot of good stuff in this one.
Now on to the government's other electoral bill, Electoral Matters Miscellaneous Amendments. There is a lot of good stuff in this one.
Among other things this will kill off the archaic restriction on naming candidates without their consent (except on how to vote cards).
Labor flagging questions that may be pursued in LegCo regarding "dominant purpose" test for definition of "electoral matter" , eg regarding day to day work of third parties that campaign for policy outcomes more than vote outcomes.
. @CassyOConnorMP moving a savings provision for unintended informal votes. OPV as a savings provision as in the ACT.
Also corrects the misrepresentation of one of my submissions in a previous report (thankyou!)
Also corrects the misrepresentation of one of my submissions in a previous report (thankyou!)
Nice anecdote of voter who said "I just gave you my number 1, I didn't want to vote for anyone else." Every Tasmanian candidate's nightmare!
. @EllaHaddadMP notes Tasmania's high informal rate. We're now the second worst state after Vic - there was an increase in unintended informals in 2021 and I'm not sure why (maybe just lack of TEC lead-time). Could get worse under 35 seats.
Division on OPV as a savings provision tied 11-11 and lost on casting vote.
Greens now introducing truth in advertising amendment.
Truth in advertising amendment also lost on casting vote.
Bill passes third reading.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
