|
Dear All, A thousand apologies to those who received slabs of email
addresses in the last update. It appears there was some conflict between my
email package and the ISP system. It should not happen again, and I would
just make the simple request that those who did please delete the addresses
and not forward them on. Also, a couple of last minute pre-election items.
Items in this update:
1. A FINAL WORD ON ABOVE/BELOW THE LINE VOTING There have been some queries about our advice to people to vote "below the line" in the Senate because some of the parties have directed their "above the line" preference flows in ways that the voter might not realise and might not agree with. Some further explanaton may be helpful (apologies if you already know these details). The majority of people will vote "above the line" for the Senate which means they put a #1 against the PARTY of their choice. If that party's candidate is eliminated during the counting, the value of the vote passes on to the next candidate nominated by the PARTY according to instructions they gave to the Australian Electoral Commission some weeks ago. In this election the ACT is likely to elect Kate Lundy (ALP) as the first of the two ACT federal senators. The second senate place, currently held by Liberal Margaret Reid, is now uncertain, with the Democrat's Rick Farley likely to be a strong challenge. However, if Rick Farley is eliminated before the second Labor candidate, then his preferences will be crucial in deciding between Labor and Liberal for the second seat. A problem is that the Democrats have instructed the Australian Electoral Commission to give half their "above the line" preferences to the Liberals and half to Labor if they are eliminated. That means that if Rick Farley is eliminated his preferences will decide between the remaining Labor and Liberal candidate according to which of them was currently in front in the counting (eg, it would not permit a trailing Labor candidate to overtake the Liberal candidate by gaining a higher percentage of the Democrats preferences). This scenario is not the most likely but it could happen. That is why we suggest that you vote below the line to ensure that the full value of your vote goes to those who support reconciliation and indigenous rights. 2. WHO'S SIGNED AND WHO HASN'T: THE PARLIAMENTARY CODE OF RACE ETHICS When you cast your vote on Saturday, you may also be interested to know how many parliamentarians and candidates have signed the Federal Parliamentarians' Code of Race Ethics. The code was developed on a bi-partisan basis in 1996 as a symbol of commitment to work for a tolerant multi-cultural society. It originated from an idea brought to the Parliament by indigenous people from Ipswich in May 1996 when their member, Pauline Hanson, announced she would not represent them. Following a unanimous resolution of the Senate and after extensive consultation with a variety of community groups, the code was developed by Senators Margaret Reynolds and John Woodley and was presented to religious & ethnic community leaders in a ceremony in Parliament House on December 2, 1996. At present signatories of the Code comprise:
ANTaR members concerned about the implications of the election outcome for race relations can find out which of their local candidates have subscribed to the voluntary Code by inspecting the web-site: http://www.antar.org.au/race_ethics/ The dedicated website contains the Code's text, a list of all sitting MPs and candidates who have signed, and background information about the development of the Code. *(ANTaR ACT has the list on email, so, if you want it sent to you send a request as a reply to this email). THE PARLIAMENTARY CODE OF RACE ETHICS. As a member of the Australian Federal Parliament I agree:
ANTaR (ACT) Contact Details GPO Box 1323 ANTaR - Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation *Please forward this message on to other interested people* *****GETTING ON/OFF THIS LIST:
This page was last modified on Tuesday, 12-Sep-2000 21:11:37 EST |