Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 28 November 2001] p5953b-5960a Hon Peter Foss; Hon Frank Hough ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2001 Second Reading Resumed from 26 September. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan) [4.10 pm]: It is fortuitous that you read that statement and the letter from the Clerk of the House, Mr President, because I intended to commence my speech by raising an entirely different reason that the Bill requires an absolute majority - one that was not canvassed by the Standing Committee on Legislation. It is important that you are here because I believe that you have no alternative but to rule at the second reading stage. As you are aware, Mr President, two items are on the Notice Paper: the Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 and the Electoral Distribution Repeal Bill 2001. It has sometimes struck people as curious that two Bills are on the Notice Paper. We suspected that that was to circumvent the requirements of the Electoral Distribution Act. I suggest that the introduction of these two Bills has become a complete mess-up, but a stronger phrase than mess-up would be appropriate and I will explain why. They are two separate Bills. There is nothing to say that either of them will be passed into law. You must deal only with the Electoral Amendment Bill 2001, Mr President, not the Electoral Distribution Repeal Bill. The amending Bill makes no reference whatsoever to the Electoral Distribution Act. It happens to deal with exactly the same measures as the other Bill; therefore, this Bill operates one way or another to affect the Electoral Distribution Act. The two cannot stand together, so to some degree it must impliedly amend or repeal the provisions of the other Act. In large measure, it copies the provisions of the previous Act. Therefore, it obviously does not repeal them. The two stand nicely together; they are almost identical. In other measures it is totally different; therefore, without a doubt, as a later enactment, it will amend the earlier Act. We must deal with the Electoral Amendment Bill on its own. We cannot take the repeal Bill into account because it has not been passed. The repeal Bill cannot have any effect in law until it has been passed by both Houses and been assented to by the Governor. Until that time, it is nothing. If the Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 is passed into law and nothing else happens, what effect will it have? It will unquestionably amend the Electoral Distribution Act. It is not a question of whether the two of them operate to amend, Mr President. You must decide on this Bill. Blind Freddie can see that the Electoral Amendment Act amends the Electoral Distribution Act. You cannot pretend that Act has been repealed, Mr President, because it has not. For all you know, Mr President, it may never be repealed. You are stuck with this Bill, Mr President. This Bill cannot stand alongside the Electoral Distribution Act because it implicitly amends it. As soon as we seek to amend the Electoral Distribution Act, we are caught by the section that says we need an absolute majority. Game, set and match. The fact is, Mr President, your Attorney General has been too smart by half. He thought that by keeping the two Bills separate, he would have more success with his reform. In fact, he would be better off incorporating the two Bills into one. However, he cannot even do that because the Electoral Amendment Act must be read a second time before the two can be merged. As soon as it is read a second time, Mr President, you must rule it out of order and set it aside; it cannot be dealt with again. Well done, Hon Jim McGinty! He has been snookered by his own balls. I am very gratified that the Clerk of the House will go to the Supreme Court to find out what will happen when these Bills have been passed. However, they will not get that far because, at some stage, we will vote on this Bill. It does not matter whether we vote on it before or after the repeal Bill because at that stage neither of them will be law. When the time comes, you must satisfy yourself, Mr President, that the Electoral Amendment Bill has passed the second reading stage appropriately. However, there is no way that you will be able to satisfy yourself, or the Clerk, that it has been passed appropriately because it undoubtedly, implicitly seeks to amend the Electoral Distribution Act. I am very interested in your comments and the Clerk’s comments, but I am sorry, Sir, you must rule on this. I do not think you have any other option whatsoever but to set this Bill aside. This Bill must be decided on its own; it amends the Electoral Distribution Act. I will deal now with the Bill that amends the Electoral Distribution Act. I refer to some of the less legal aspects of the submissions to the committee. The committee report is probably very interesting. It is a pity that all members of the House did not have a chance to hear people’s evidence. I suppose it is also a pity that the committee did not have a chance to hear more evidence. The committee criticised the limited time that we had to consider the Bill and that we were unable to advertise it very well. The advertisement was rather like a call for government tenders - the procedures were off-putting to even the most sophisticated of witnesses. Presidents of shire councils said that they found the committee format daunting. Aboriginal people turned up but refused to give evidence because they found it very intimidating. [1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 28 November 2001] p5953b-5960a Hon Peter Foss; Hon Frank Hough That was all done in the name of principle. A principle has been announced by the Labor Party that will override every other principle of fairness. The Labor Party is prepared to say that no matter what else, there must be one vote, one value. I do not like that term; it assumes the answer. What is the value of a vote? We should use the more neutral term that was used in the committee report, “equal voter representation”, which means the same number of voters in every electorate. However, that is not quite the case. We have a dummy voter in some areas. It would not really be equal voter representation. It is all right to make some concessions especially when they benefit the Labor Party or the Greens (WA). Some of the reports that came from the committee were for the benefit of the Greens. It is nice to know the Greens are human. Self-interest is important and it should be recognised. I am happy to acknowledge the Greens’ human quality of self interest. However, the fact is that in the past a number of people have been quite willing to speak against one vote, one value. Interestingly, those people included some of the people referred to by Hon George Cash. He referred to two important Labor members, Hon Bert Hawke and Hon Frank Wise. Hon George Cash: Both were distinguished former Labor Premiers. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes, and they are often spoken of in revered terms, including by members in this very Chamber. Hon Frank Wise said this - With regard to the question as to whether the metropolitan area should have a reduction in the value of its votes, the fact remains that if one vote were to have one value and we were to permit that evil to exist, it would mean 35 seats in the metropolitan area in this Assembly. If we were to allow ourselves to be dominated by the idea of representation upon a population basis, an altogether disproportionate number of seats would be concentrated where the bulk of population is located. That, of course, would include, as I have already mentioned, the areas immediately adjoining the metropolis. It would be foolish to adopt the line of argument followed by the Attorney General in making Queensland the basis of comparison. We cannot compare the incomparable. My final word is that this is not a fair Bill, either in the representation it will afford or in the quota presented. It is not reasonable to suggest that votes should be equal at Yanchep and Ravensthorpe. It is not fair to suggest that the interests of people at Peak Hill warrant only the same voting power as that given to an area within 10 miles of the city. The Bill, in that and many other respects, I submit, is not a fair one, and on the argument advanced when similar Bills have been before the Chamber, it is not wanted by the community, even if it were a fair Bill. Funny - where have I heard that argument? That is Hon Frank Wise. However, I think the person who is really interesting is Hon Bert Hawke. He was a prophet. He said this - Because it is a travesty of justice, because it inflicts upon people in districts far removed from the metropolitan area a penalty they do not deserve to suffer. This is a centralisation Bill in every sense of the term. It will swell further the already swollen representation of the metropolitan area. It will lay the foundation for a majority of members of this Assembly to come from the metropolitan area within a reasonably short period of years. I care not whether the majority of the members of the Assembly be Labour or anti-Labour, but if such majority comes from the metropolitan area then, as surely as night follows day, we shall have intensive centralisation.