ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No. 1 and agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

Perhaps if I beg the indulgence of the council and make some comments now that pertain to all the amendments generally. Following a process of negotiation between the Attorney-General in the other place and the Hon. Stephen Wade, I understand that the amendments moved in the schedule have cross-party support.

Members would recall that, while a significant amount of the bill has been agreed to, there are essentially three sticking points between the government and the opposition. I thank all members for their contributions in consideration of the bill and the important points they have placed on record in leading to a positive outcome for the bill.

I obviously do not want to hold up the chamber, though I believe with the negotiation that has occurred between the Attorney and the Hon. Stephen Wade, and also advice and input from the ALP state secretary and the Liberal Party state director, it is important to place some detail on the public record.

The three outstanding issues relate to the day for the issue of writs, provisions for postal voting and resolving matters about second preference how-to-vote cards. The principles considered on these points have previously been placed on the record, both here and in the other place, so we obviously do not want to revisit those and I will seek only to detail the solutions we have found since then.

Firstly in relation to the date of the issue of the writs, I will move that the date should be set for 28 days from the date for the election. I will also move that the date for the close of rolls be changed from 10 to six days after the issue of the writ and the date for nominations be three days after the close of rolls.

The effect of this will be to minimise the length of the campaign period while still increasing the time the Electoral Commission has to distribute material, particularly relating to postal voting, which brings me to the next point: postal voting. I will move that the complete ban on political parties distributing postal vote applications be relaxed, as long as distribution occurs in a specific way.

The compromise position is that forms can be distributed so long as it is in a prescribed form that specifically states that the form must be returned directly to the commissioner. This point means the concerns that some electors would not receive postal vote applications were allayed as parties were still allowed to distribute. So, parties are still allowed to distribute postal vote application forms but it addresses the concerns about political parties' involvement in the process by requiring that the applications are not returned via a political party, which has been done in the past. I also understand there cannot be any political party material included on that paperwork as well, so it is quite party political neutral material that is included on that postal vote.

Finally, on the matter of how-to-vote cards, I will move that the candidate seeking to hand out a second preference style how-to-vote card would need to notify the candidate of the intention to indicate first preference to that candidate at least eight days before distribution. This combined with the proposed provision restricting the number of look and feel how-to-vote cards can be lodged with the commissioner to one where both concerns are passing off and the authority for second preferences are addressed.

The amendment does not prohibit the use of second preference how-to-vote cards, but it does mean a candidate essentially endorsed by another will have an opportunity to make it very clear that they do not accept the endorsement, if necessary. Additionally, the amendments ensure that it will be very clear to electors who is actually distributing the card owing to the government's passing off provisions.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all members for their contributions and efforts on this bill, particularly the Hon. Stephen Wade and Sandy Biar from his staff. I believe we have achieved a very positive outcome and I commend this motion to the council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that the opposition will support the alternative amendments proposed by the government. I acknowledge and thank the government for the focused and constructive discussions which have been held in recent times. In particular, I would also like to thank Family First, Dignity for Disability, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Ann Bressington, who supported some, or all, of the amendments proposed by the opposition. It was only by their willingness to support the opposition amendments that the government has been forced to negotiate amendments which were fair to all.

I appreciate that this crossbench support was given for the sake of fairness, not necessarily in their own interests. Earlier in the debate on this bill, I indicated my disappointment at the Greens' deafness to Liberal concerns. I think the government and the Greens need to remember that electoral reform is likely to be the best and most sustainable reform possible if the reform is fair and has bipartisan and multipartisan support.

I concur with the minister's summary of the intended impact of the alternative amendments. The bill is another step in the electoral reform journey. One element of the conversation on this bill which remains unresolved is the need to reconsider the availability of postal voting. My party is strongly of the view that access to postal voting needs to be increased. I hope that we might be able to consider this issue in the next parliament.

In conclusion, I also acknowledge the contributions of my adviser Sandy Biar, the Attorney-General's adviser Liam Golding and the state directors of our respective parties.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 4:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No. 4 but makes the following alternative amendment in lieu thereof:

New clauses, page 6, after line 29—Insert:

13A—Amendment of section 47—Issue of writ

Section 47—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) In the case of a general election for the House of Assembly, the writ or writs for the elections in all House of Assembly districts must be issued 28 days before the date fixed for the polling in each district under section 48.

13B—Amendment of section 48—Contents of writ

(1) Section 48(3)(a)—delete '—the date falling 10 days after the date of the issue of the writ;' and substitute:

—

(i) in the case of a general election for the House of Assembly—the date falling 6 days after the date of the issue of the writ; or

(ii) in any other case—the date falling 10 days after the date of the issue of the writ;

(2) Section 48(4)—delete 'a date falling not less than 3 days nor more than 14 days after the date fixed for the close of the rolls.' and substitute:

—

(i) in the case of a general election for the House of Assembly—the date falling 3 days after the date fixed for the close of the rolls; or

(ii) in any other case—a date falling not less than 3 days nor more than 14 days after the date fixed for the close of the rolls.

I have already spoken to that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition will be supporting this and all the following amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendments Nos 5 and 6.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 7:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on amendment No. 7 and disagrees to the alternative amendments made by the House of Assembly and makes the following amendment in lieu of the alternative amendments of the House of Assembly:

Page 8, line 15 [clause 17, inserted section 74A(1)]—After '(an application form)' insert:

unless—

(a) the application form is in the prescribed form; and

(b) it is stated on the form that it must be returned directly to the Electoral Commissioner; and

(c) no additional information or matter appears on the form or on the reverse side of the form

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 11:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No. 11.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 12:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council insists on its amendment No. 12.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 14:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No. 14 but makes the following amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 9, lines 21 to 27 [clause 22, inserted section 112A(1)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) the card—

(i) has substantially the same appearance as a how to vote card that—

(A) has been submitted for inclusion in posters under section 66; or

(B) has been lodged with the Electoral Commissioner no later than 12 noon on the day falling 8 days before polling day; or

(ii) is a compilation of more than 1 how to vote card of a kind referred to in subparagraph (i) (provided that those how to vote cards relate to different electoral districts).

Page 9, after line 33 [clause 22, inserted section 112A]—After subsection (2) insert:

(2a) If a how to vote card is lodged with the Electoral Commissioner under subsection (1)(c)(i)(B) by or on behalf of a candidate, no further how to vote card may be lodged in relation to the same election by or on behalf of that candidate.

Page 10, after line 18 [clause 22, inserted section 112A]—After subsection (5) insert:

(5a) Despite subsection (5), a how to vote card distributed by or on behalf of a candidate (the relevant candidate) will be taken not to have substantially the same appearance as—

(a) the relevant candidate’s initial submitted how to vote card (if any); or

(b) a how to vote card lodged under subsection (1)(c)(i)(B) by or on behalf of the relevant candidate,

if—

(c) the distributed how to vote card indicates that the first preference vote should be given to a different candidate from the relevant candidate or any other candidate indicated as a candidate to whom a first preference vote should be given on a how to vote card referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); and

(d) the relevant candidate has not given written notice at least 8 days before the card is distributed and in accordance with any other requirements of the regulations to the candidate to whom the distributed how to vote card indicates that the first preference vote should be given.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 15:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No. 15 and agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

Motion carried.