CONSTITUTION (CASUAL VACANCIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:43): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Constitution Act 1934; and to make related amendments to the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members would be aware that, previously, I introduced a bill, which was virtually identical to this—in fact, it may well have been identical—however, with the prorogation of parliament the bill lapsed. Obviously, we cannot have the same replacement system for casual vacancies in this house as in the upper house, but I am trying to create a mechanism whereby we can save not only money but time and effort in the way we fill a casual vacancy in this house. It is done in other places, but I emphasise that, where it is done in Tasmania and the ACT, they have the Hare-Clark system, so they are replacing someone under a system of proportional representation by going to the next person, if you like, in terms of votes.

I note that both Liberal and Labor in Victoria have sought to create a mechanism to fill a casual vacancy. Soon after he became premier, Jeff Kennett announced that he wanted to amend Victoria's Constitution Act to provide that, in the filling of that vacancy, it could be done with a mechanism without having to go to a by-election. I guess there are some parallels in what he proposed and what I am proposing.

According to the research I have done, that concept of replacing someone in a single member electorate has not been proposed anywhere else in Australia. That is the advice I have been given, but I stand to be corrected if anyone can find an example where someone has tried to do it.

The ALP in Victoria opposed that move but then, as I understand it, introduced its own bill which provided for casual vacancies to be filled by party nomination. But that proposal would have required the Hare-Clark system of proportional representation. That bill was unsuccessful, so that is slightly different to mine because I am not proposing proportional representation for the House of Assembly.

I guess I should apologise to the member for Frome, because under my proposal he would not be here—so, Geoff, my apologies. Under my proposal, the party or the Independent that held the seat would be able to nominate a replacement until the next election, subject to the parliament itself (the House of Assembly) in effect endorsing that proposal. If it did not, then the matter would have to go to a by-election.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Geoff would have been here under that scenario.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Davenport says that Geoff would have been here, because the government would not have supported the nomination by the Liberal Party to replace the Hon. Rob Kerin with another Liberal, but I am not sure about that. As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, the Labor Party and the Labor government have always upheld the tradition in the upper house of replacing a member who leaves, retires or dies with a person of that same political affiliation.

I think we all become a bit cynical at times, but there still is a degree of integrity among colleagues in this place and the other place. I am seeking to provide a mechanism with a lot of safeguards where we do not have to go to a costly by-election. Say, for instance, a member had to leave this parliament for reasons of ill health. They could be easily replaced in the sense that, if it was a member of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, they could nominate a replacement without having to go to the poll. Eventually they will have to go to the poll at the next election, and my proposal has safeguards built into it to minimise any possible abuse.

In essence, whilst we have a different electoral arrangement to members in the upper house, the principle is similar in that it would save time, money and effort if we could fill a casual vacancy in a more direct and speedy way, without the great cost involved to the taxpayer. I think the public would welcome a mechanism which would allow us to do it, not simply to save money but in a way which is fair and equitable and which ensures that the electorate continues to be represented by the person, or the type of person in respect of party and political ideology, they voted for in the first place. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.