Division
Kim Carr Chairman, I was seeking an answer to a straight question. The committee has considered the question of whether or not a vote 1 above the line is a formal vote, irrespective of the directions issued on a ballot paper, and the advice of the Electoral Commission is that it is, and that is a position I understand the government has actually accepted. My question goes to matters that relate to people arguing in favour of 'just vote 1'. In the Langer case, the High Court found that Mr Albert Langer's campaign for people to just vote 1 was illegal. It was, in fact, a crime for Mr Langer to undertake that course of action, but that relied upon section 329A, which has been removed—that is, it was a crime to promote voting in a way that was inconsistent with section 240. Of course, the proposition that was put at the time was that, if people had access to this information, they might use it and that would be regarded as a criminal offence, but that section has been repealed. I am asking the minister a direct question: is there a replacement section in this amendment bill? And is it a crime for a citizen to promote voting just 1, which of course would be a formal vote? Mathias Cormann I have, of course, answered questions in relation to this issue several times now. For the benefit of the chamber, let me advise the Senate that Senator Carr is completely incorrect in what he is asserting. The Langer matter related to voting in the House of Representatives, not to voting in the Senate. That is the first mistake that Senator Carr made. Clearly, he was handed something. He has not got a clue what he is talking about. He is just reading some notes that have been handed to him by some apparatchik from the Labor Party. Let's make sure we know what we are talking about. The Langer matter related to voting in the House of Representatives. Mr Langer proposed a House of Representatives ballot paper with 1, 2, 2, 3, 3. The relevant section of the act dealing with formality of Hou
Senate, 2016-03-17. negative: ayes 22, noes 36.
Question
Kim Carr Chairman, I was seeking an answer to a straight question. The committee has considered the question of whether or not a vote 1 above the line is a formal vote, irrespective of the directions issued on a ballot paper, and the advice of the Electoral Commission is that it is, and that is a position I understand the government has actually accepted. My question goes to matters that relate to people arguing in favour of 'just vote 1'. In the Langer case, the High Court found that Mr Albert Langer's campaign for people to just vote 1 was illegal. It was, in fact, a crime for Mr Langer to undertake that course of action, but that relied upon section 329A, which has been removed—that is, it was a crime to promote voting in a way that was inconsistent with section 240. Of course, the proposition that was put at the time was that, if people had access to this information, they might use it and that would be regarded as a criminal offence, but that section has been repealed. I am asking the minister a direct question: is there a replacement section in this amendment bill? And is it a crime for a citizen to promote voting just 1, which of course would be a formal vote? Mathias Cormann I have, of course, answered questions in relation to this issue several times now. For the benefit of the chamber, let me advise the Senate that Senator Carr is completely incorrect in what he is asserting. The Langer matter related to voting in the House of Representatives, not to voting in the Senate. That is the first mistake that Senator Carr made. Clearly, he was handed something. He has not got a clue what he is talking about. He is just reading some notes that have been handed to him by some apparatchik from the Labor Party. Let's make sure we know what we are talking about. The Langer matter related to voting in the House of Representatives. Mr Langer proposed a House of Representatives ballot paper with 1, 2, 2, 3, 3. The relevant section of the act dealing with formality of Hou
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.