LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (12:16): I refer to the ministerial statement made yesterday in another place by the Premier and in this place by the Leader of the Government. Leaving aside the sabre-rattling and mischievous nature of much of the statement, it does contain matters which are seriously misleading and which ought be corrected on the record.

The Premier sought first to suggest that the legislation currently applying to the filling of Legislative Council vacancies is different to that which faced then premier Dunstan in 1977 in relation to the replacement of then senator Steele Hall. The Premier has sought to suggest that that legislation was different—that, in fact, the legislation which faces the Premier today is legislation that is different from that which Mr Dunstan had to apply. The fact is that the legislation in 1977 contains the following words (and this is the federal Constitution in dealing with the filling of casual vacancies) relevant to the retiring senator:

...at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognised by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate...

That is the legislation they were then considering. The legislation that faces this Premier is (and I quote the following relevant words):

...at the time of his or her election publicly recognised by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of the party and publicly represented himself or herself to be such a candidate...

The legislation was the same as that which will be faced next week by a meeting of members of both houses in this place. It is mischievous to suggest that the considerations were different because the legislation in South Australia did not then apply.

More importantly, the reason the Premier has been endeavouring to distance himself from the words uttered by then premier Dunstan is clear, and it is a purely political one. The fact is that Mr Dunstan said, 'the precise terms of that amendment do not apply...'. They did not apply then because there was no member of a political party, and they do not apply now because, as Mr Xenophon has always acknowledged, there is no political party involved here. Then premier Dunstan said that, because the words of the Constitution did not apply (just as they do not apply now):

...we have to return to the simple question of principle and precedent, and I believe that, in all the circumstances, the nearest that we can possibly come to fulfilling those requirements is to nominate some other person who was on the original endorsed team... and who appears still to represent the body of opinion which was given expression to by the votes of the electors at the time of that original election.

Principle and precedent dictate that someone who was on the ticket with Mr Xenophon be nominated. For the Premier to suggest that there is no precedent being set here is wrong: there is.

I also point out other errors in the Premier's statement. He talks about a joint sitting of parliament: it is not a joint sitting of the houses, it is in fact an assembly of members. The ministerial statement made by the Premier is clearly erroneous in this and many other respects.

Time expired.