House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Constitution (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill CONSTITUTION (CASUAL VACANCIES) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher 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 Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:44): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is a reintroduction of a bill that I first introduced on 28 March 2007 and then on 14 May 2009. The purpose of this bill is essentially to enable casual vacancies in this house to be filled in a parallel way to that which occurs in the Legislative Council. This bill would allow us to avoid costly by-elections, and the bill has a prescribed time— The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, it would apply for Independents and Greens. There is a prescribed time limit so that it could not be just prior to an election or if a member was going to retire anyway, for any reason. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What if the Independent dies in office? The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I assume you would come to the funeral. Beyond that— The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, this bill parallels what happens in the Legislative Council. We have recently had two by-elections which did not change the nature of the representation, both held by Labor, and a lot of money was spent for no real purpose. In Victoria, both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have at times supported this type of measure but it has not actually been implemented there yet. I think it makes sense. I do not see any reason why we should go through the expensive process of a by-election if, for example, someone for health reasons, or whatever, has to leave early. Why spend a fortune of taxpayers' money when, if it is a Liberal, Labor, Independent or Greens held seat, they could nominate a replacement? As I say, there are provisions in the bill that you cannot do it close to an election and you cannot do it if a member, for example, had to retire. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How would an Independent do it? Just leave a name in an envelope? The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, the reason we are Independents is we are capable of organising things and thinking for ourselves. That is why we survive. We survive on our ability and wit. It works in the Legislative Council. The methodology would still need to be approved by the house, similar to what happens in the Legislative Council, so there is no automatic option. It would be nominated but then would still require the endorsement of the sitting of parliament. If the parliament rejected the option, then it would have to go to a by-election. People said to me prior to the Port Adelaide by-election that the opposition did not favour dispensing with a by-election. People tend to look at these things in partisan terms. I am trying to look at this issue from the point of view of what is best overall for the community which does not take away their democratic right. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not much! The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Croydon must be suggesting we have elections within the four-year term—mini elections—to test what people in the electorate want. I have just put out a questionnaire to 23,000 people in my electorate. I ask them frequently what they think. I do not know whether the member for Croydon is suggesting that we have mini elections throughout the four-year cycle to find out what the public wants; but, if a seat is held by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, Independent or Greens, unless it is close to the election (and there are some other reasons given in the bill), I do not see any reason why we should inflict a $100,000-plus cost in each case on the taxpayer, and that is what has happened recently in the two seats that were contested. I think the bill itself is fairly self-explanatory. I do not need to promote the arguments for it much further. It is one of those things: either people agree or disagree with the principle of it. I think it has merit. The member for Croydon says you would have to use a proportional representation system. Some jurisdictions have a count-back system. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Croydon will have an opportunity to have his say. He is being very rude to the member for Fisher. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Croydon is irreplaceable in his seat. They will never have a member following the member for Croydon's departure, because no-one will be able to fill his shoes. I commend this bill to the house. I think it has merit and I ask members to look at it on its merit and consider the benefits—as I say, it has been considered in other parliaments as well—to see if we can have a system that does not take away people's democratic right but saves the taxpayer a lot of money. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.