Bills

Constitution (Electoral Redistribution) (Appeals) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 April 2017.)

The SPEAKER: What better member to inform the house on this than a true successor of Ren DeGaris.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (10:32): Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am not too sure that I am deserving of that. I join the debate on this matter, which is very important, mainly because of my involvement over the last couple of years, particularly during the course of last year, in the process that was undertaken by the Electoral District Boundaries Commission. At the end of that process the Supreme Court judgement made some recommendations to the parliament, and the member for Bragg has taken it upon herself to bring this bill before the house to act on those recommendations.

Ms Chapman: By the Chief Justice.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, by the Chief Justice. It was an interesting process, and most members would be vaguely aware of the process that is undertaken. It came to my attention in recent elections that the Electoral District Boundaries Commission is a very important body in its judgement. Indeed, I believe it determines more so which party forms government in this state—or it has—than the electors. The reality is that in the last two elections, the electors, the will of the people of South Australia, have been usurped by what I could only say—and in my opinion this is being very kind—is the incompetent work of the boundaries commission, up until the last body of redistribution work.

The 2010 election was probably the most unfair election ever held anywhere in Australia. As I have said many times in this place, it was more difficult for the Liberal Party to win an election in South Australia than it ever was for the Labor Party to win an election in Queensland during the years of gerrymandering in that state. Through the process, I became aware that a number of people in this nation take a very active interest in the matters of electoral boundaries. There are at least three members of the Australian public, but not of the South Australian public, who made very worthwhile submissions to the boundaries commission.

The bill before us would correct what I think is an error in our Constitution Act inasmuch as none of those people, even though they have considerable expertise in the area of boundary redistribution—and in reading their submissions one realises that they have considerable expertise—are resident in South Australia and therefore not electors in South Australia. Having made very studied submissions to the boundaries commission, none of those people would have been in a position to appeal a final decision of the commission if they felt that the commission had simply got it wrong.

The grounds of appeal are fairly limited, that is, that the boundaries commission has failed to adhere to the Constitution Act. Through the process, as I have said, there were a great number of submissions and the boundaries commission then made a draft determination. The draft determination, to be quite frank, was not much better than earlier determinations by the commission, the ones that I referred to as being incompetent. I think the draft determination ignored the reality at least of section 83(1) of the Constitution Act, which basically provides that electoral boundaries should be drawn so that the outcome of elections are fair. One would ask: fair to whom? I would say they should be fair to the electors, but that is not the situation we have enjoyed in South Australia for a long time.

It is my belief that the upcoming election in March next year will be the first time that we will have fair boundaries in South Australia since the Constitution Act was changed in 1975. It is incredibly important not only for people with an interest and knowledge to be able to make submissions to future boundaries commissions but also for people to be involved in the ongoing process which leads to the final conclusion of having a new set of boundaries drawn. That process includes the appeals provisions to the Supreme Court, a process that was entertained by the ALP in the most recent case, and we are all aware that the Supreme Court, in an unanimous judgement, rejected the appeal of the ALP and upheld—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: As I am reminded by the member for Bragg, costs were awarded against the ALP. That appeal involved very significant costs, and the Liberal Party found itself pretty well being the respondent because the boundaries commission decided—and I am not too sure about this, not being a lawyer; I am sure there is a legal explanation—that it needed to stand mute in the face of the appeal.

I would have thought the boundaries commission would be well within its rights to justify the position and the stance it took in coming to the set of boundaries that it did. Notwithstanding that, the Liberal Party found itself being forced to be a respondent to that appeal and to argue the case, I would say, on behalf of the people of South Australia for us to have final justice in the way the electoral boundaries are drawn.

As I said, expert opinions outside South Australia have contributed to the most recent debate and the most recent argument about how the boundaries should have been drawn, and I think it would have been a great pity if we had come to the point where those experts were precluded from being involved further in the process of redrawing our boundaries. I congratulate the member for Bragg on bringing this matter to the attention of the house.

I know the Labor Party will not want to involve itself at all, even in the discussion of this side issue, because they may be forced to admit that South Australia has been subject to a gerrymander, and a very sizeable gerrymander, for a very long time. Notwithstanding that, I certainly hope that the Labor Party understands the principle involved here and that, when it comes to important matters of our constitution and our electoral system, and particularly the boundaries that are drawn on which our elections are held, the best expertise available in the nation can be used and can be a part of the process.

I will take the opportunity to congratulate the boundaries commission. This is the first time since the Constitution Act was changed, after a referendum in 1991, that the boundaries commission has actually understood what section 83(1) means and has taken steps to ensure that the people of South Australia will be able to go to an election feeling a lot more confident than they have in recent times that the party that they vote for will be able to form government and, indeed, that they can get rid of a bad government, which they have been trying to do for at least two elections. For eight years the people of South Australia have had a government that they did not want.

The process has worked at last, and I am very proud that I was involved in that and I believe I had a number of contributions to the outcome. The process has worked but, as always, it can be improved. This is a small improvement that was suggested by the Chief Justice, and the member for Bragg is trying to have that enacted.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T. R. Kenyon.