Mr Dan Barron-Sullivan; Mr Larry Graham; Speaker
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 September 2001] p3634c-3639a Mr Jim McGinty; Mr Dan Barron-Sullivan; Mr Larry Graham; Speaker ELECTORAL DISTRIBUTION REPEAL BILL 2001 Third Reading MR McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Electoral Affairs) [2.34 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. MR BARRON-SULLIVAN (Mitchell - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.34 pm]: This Bill is the second part of the Labor Party’s agenda for electoral change. This Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill constitute the most significant change to our process of democracy and our electoral system since 1904. During the debate on these Bills, a number of key points have been raised about not just the technicalities of this legislation but also the principles that underlie our whole electoral system, and the actions and motives of the Labor Party in putting forward this legislation. Events in this Parliament over recent weeks have been interesting, because during the debate and discussion in this Chamber we have not only been dealing with a piece of legislation to change the electoral system but also have had to consider our role in this Parliament. At the end of the debate on these two Bills, this Chamber has failed the people of Western Australia. It has done so because the Labor Party has not allowed the Parliament to act in the way it should act when considering this sort of legislation. I remind members of this Chamber’s call to send the first Bill that formed part of the Government’s electoral change agenda to a standing committee; and it possibly would have made the same call with regard to this Bill. That call came from a number of Independent members in this Chamber, including an Independent Labor member; from the National Party; and from the Liberal Party. Members in this place, with the exception of Labor Party members, recognised clearly that for a number of reasons, this legislation should be sent to a standing committee and examined in great detail. It was very important that both of these Bills be sent to a standing committee so that they could be dealt with in detail and scrutinised to the degree that people in the community expect with regard to legislation that is so important to the foundation of our processes of government. Mr Bradshaw interjected. Mr BARRON-SULLIVAN: I could not have put it better. As the member for Murray-Wellington just said, the Government could not give a stuff for principles along those lines. The idea of sending this legislation to a standing committee was rejected outright. We were given no sensible reason that this legislation should not be sent to a standing committee. The member for South Perth even moved that the standing committee should report within a fixed time - I think three months - so that it could not be used as a delaying tactic. We have about three and a half years until the next election. That is plenty of time to put into effect any electoral changes that may be required. The Government gave no objective and valid reason for not agreeing to send the legislation to a standing committee. It held fast and refused to allow this Parliament to act in the way that it is supposed to act. The most serious lesson that we have learnt from this legislation is that while the Labor Party has the numbers to dominate this Parliament, anyone who is contemplating electoral reform of any sort should think twice and put those ideas in the bottom drawer and wait for a better day, because the Labor Party has made it clear that it is not interested in principles; it is interested only in blatant political gain. A range of matters concerning principle have been discussed during the debate on this legislation. Perhaps one of the most important principles is the entrenchment of our electoral laws. The members for Kingsley, and Nedlands, and others who have legal expertise, have gone in some detail into the legal background of electoral change. However, even I can understand the importance of a principle such as entrenchment. During the debate I pointed out a number of times that even the Premier has supported the notion of entrenchment, and that his support is firmly on record. Indeed, the Premier has even gone on the record as saying that entrenchment should apply to the notion of one vote, one value. Previously, the Premier committed the Labor Party to putting the concept of one vote, one value into legislation - but into legislation that defines our State’s Constitution, and that is presented to the people in a referendum. He also committed the Labor Party to the idea that any constitutional amendments that affect our electoral system should be decided by the people in a referendum, and he has spoken strongly in support of that idea. On the other hand, the Minister for Electoral Affairs referred to the notion of entrenchment as a “barnacle on the keel of progress”. During the debate, the Minister for Electoral Affairs tried to gloss over a clear discrepancy, or difference of opinion, between himself and the Premier on the question of entrenchment. Despite publicly supporting that principle, the Premier leaned across from his chair, and attacked me for the way that I had been - in his view - misinterpreting the advice given by the Commission of Government, and so on. Mr McGinty: I think that you are being dishonest. Mr BARRON-SULLIVAN: I do not mind whether the minister says “misleading” or “dishonest” or whatever. [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 September 2001] p3634c-3639a Mr Jim McGinty; Mr Dan Barron-Sullivan; Mr Larry Graham; Speaker During the debate, the Minister for Electoral Affairs - who is not even listening to this debate, and that will be a principle that I will touch on in a moment - supported my position during the argument I had with the Premier. Therefore, the Minister for Electoral Affairs differed from the Premier over another matter concerning an important principle. The Government has displayed blatant arrogance throughout this debate. From time to time, this important legislation which deals with the very foundations of our electoral system, and which required considerable attention in this Chamber, did not even have the benefit of the Minister for Electoral Affairs’ attention. For a considerable amount of time during the consideration in detail stage of the first Bill, the minister did not even sit in this Chamber, let alone invite in an adviser. At one stage a stand-in minister was in the Chamber, but he could not answer any technical questions. When I asked a question he told me that I should not be asking that sort of question, that it was not appropriate for him to provide that advice, and that there was no need for an adviser to be in the Chamber. However, when the Minister for Electoral Affairs came back into the Chamber, he volunteered the exact advice that I had previously sought. In other words, there was no effort to deal with this legislation in an objective way, nor to provide answers to the questions that concerned technical matters, matters of principle, or matters of policy. We have seen a blatant disregard for our parliamentary process. However, that is not where the matter of principle ends. When we look at the politics behind this legislation, we find that a number of important principles of parliamentary representation have either been breached or thwarted. Importantly, the convention built into the bedrock of our democratic system is that members of Parliament are elected by their constituencies to represent the people living in those areas. However, government members have argued that the Labor Party stands for the principle of so-called one vote, one value, and that it will support that policy, without giving one single explanation of how its position will benefit the people it represents. This has occurred despite the fact that members from both the Liberal Party and the National Party have given a number of objective reasons that the introduction of this legislation will have a detrimental impact on country Western Australians, and on the constituencies of at least eight Labor Party members. Our most basic principle - namely, that we are elected to represent the people of our electorates, and that their interests must come first - has been cast aside in the interest of political expediency. When we started looking at the detail of the legislation, we found that any principles that may have been associated with the Labor Party’s stance had been pushed to one side - even this principle of so-called one vote, one value. Once we opened the lid on the legislation, looked at it in some detail, and had the cooperation of the Electoral Commission to run models past it, we found that this legislation bears absolutely no resemblance to the notion of one vote, one value. The Minister for Electoral Affairs even admitted that if this legislation is enacted some seats will have around 12 500 voters, while other seats will have around 22 000 or 24 000 voters. It is utterly beyond me how we can have some seats with 12 000 or 13 000 electors, and other seats with 20 000 or 24 000 electors, and still call that one vote, one value. When we look at the reasoning behind this legislation, we find that its implementation will be of significant benefit to the Labor Party, and that is when we learn the true nature of these two Bills. Once again, this legislation has nothing to do with principle, but everything to do with pragmatic political gain.