Legislative Council - Wednesday, 26 May 2010, Page 252

ELECTORAL PROCESS

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:31): I would like to thank all honourable members including members of the government for being willing to consider this motion merely one sitting period since it was moved. I appreciate that it is normally the practice of the council to let matters lie on the table for some time, and I appreciate the cooperation of all legislative councillors to ensure that this matter is dealt with expeditiously.

I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Even the government seems to be reluctantly willing to admit that there was a problem that needed to be looked at, even if government members seem to be more keen to play the blame game. They have moved amendments which they seem to want to use as an excuse not to support the substantive motion, but let me explain to honourable members why I would encourage them not to support any amendments other than the amendment moved by the Hon. Kelly Vincent.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could, in that case, turn to the amendment of the Hon. Kelly Vincent first, because I think it illustrates the weakness in one of the government's amendments. Government members wanted to make it open slather, by including 'any other relevant matter'. They said that that was going to provide clarity and remove ambiguity. I would have thought that adding 'any other relevant matter' would have added ambiguity not clarity. The Hon. Kelly Vincent did the courtesy to the council—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr President, could you clarify who has the call?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr President. Secondly, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, as I said, has provided an amendment which clarifies a matter which, as she hinted in her comments, I believe would have been covered by the amendment but, for the sake of clarity, I appreciate it and I will certainly be supporting it.

In relation to the government's amendments, the Leader of the Government, in moving the amendment on behalf of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, who apparently seems to forget how to do these things—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Normally, you include 'any other relevant matter' and I don't need to amend it. Normally you include 'any other relevant matter'.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It's just that this time you didn't. I had to move an amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You didn't move it, Bernie. That is the problem. You waffled on and then you didn't move it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade will stick to the substance.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What the honourable Leader of the Government said, on behalf of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan (who was not lost for words but was lost for an amendment), was that he was concerned that this seemed to be targeted at the Labor Party. Could I remind honourable members that paragraph 1(a) states, 'the use of bogus how-to-vote cards...to ensure that electors are not misled'. End of reference. There is no reference there that reads 'misled by the Labor Party'. It is misled by anyone. The fact of the matter is that this committee will fail if it does not provide recommendations to this council that will protect voters from any party working against their interests.

Secondly, the other reason why I believe the first part of the amendment is ill-founded is because it suggests that we should be looking not just at the 2010 election, but at all previous elections. There have been 52 general elections since 1851—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —excuse me—and goodness knows how many by-elections. So if the committee really thinks that we've got time to have a select committee on so many elections I think that is ill placed.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable Leader of the Government—of course it would be disorderly of me to be distracted by his interjection, but he says there was a suggestion earlier there might be elections that were relevant. We were told that perhaps 1975 might be relevant, when Ralph Jacobi was up against Steele Hall; it was suggested that 1997 might be relevant because of Mr Evans; we were told that 2006 might be relevant because the honourable Leader of the Government was handing out how-to-vote cards in Newland. The fact of the matter is that this reference needs to be timely and focused.

Thirdly, I think it was the Leader of the Government, or it might have been the honourable Bernard Finnigan, mentioned that the commonwealth government has had reviews into elections which have been broad. I was interested that they did reference the commonwealth practice because the commonwealth, indeed, does have a general review after every election, but that is by a standing committee. It is by a joint standing committee. In other words it is not just this house telling the other house how to run its business. And, secondly, none of those references are for more than one election. Why would you, after every election, have a committee that looks at all other elections back to 1851?

Fourthly, the Senate has actually passed a very similar reference to this to the joint select committee on electoral matters. Believe it or not, they have not included the 1851 election. They have only included this election, because this is the election that has shown a gaping hole in both the law and the morality of the Labor Party.

The other point concerns the second part of the government's amendment in relation to 'any other relevant matters'. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan suggests that adding 'any other relevant matters' would avoid ambiguity. I cannot see how it would. 'Any other relevant matters'—doesn't that just say anything?

The Hon. A. Bressington: Why do we have it in every other one?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let me answer the hypothetical question: why do we have it in every other select committee? That is not true; we do not have it in every other select committee. As the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said in relation to a committee that he referenced, we added matters as we needed to. I was very keen to make sure that this reference was focused and timely. It is not going to be a four year select committee, and to that end I believe it was necessary to keep it focused.

If the Legislative Council is of the view that other matters come up in relation to the 2010 election that warrant further investigation, first of all I would be surprised. It is two months since the election and we would have thought that all significant matters had already been identified. It is always open to the council to amend it, just as we did in relation to the committee that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan related to, we can refer additional matters to this committee. But I believed it was very important to maintain faith with those members who expressed an interest in this committee, to keep it timely and focused, because we want the results of the committee back so that the council can consider the amendments in relation to the Electoral Act well before the local government elections in November.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I made that clear in my moving speech. We are not the only representative government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the President.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In summary, Mr President, the opposition is strongly of the view that it would be most useful for the people of this state if the committee was focused and timely. We do not believe that the government amendments serve that end. We would urge honourable members to support the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment and oppose those of the government and then support the motion as amended.

The council divided on the Hon. P. Holloway's amendment to paragraph 1:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent's amendment carried; the Hon. P. Holloway's amendment negatived.

Motion as amended carried.