HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. Clause 5, page 3, line 2 [clause 5(1), inserted paragraph (a)(ii)]—Delete '100' and substitute '250'

No. 2. Clause 5, page 3, lines 9 and 10 [clause 5(2), inserted subsection (3a)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) an elector signs a nomination paper under subsection (3)(a)(ii) for—

(i) a candidate in the group; and

(ii) another candidate in the election (including another candidate in the group),

No. 3. Clause 7, page 3, line 25—Delete '2' and substitute '3'

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

People might be aware that the government had two sets of bills we wanted to deal with in relation to electoral change. The first one was one that this house dealt with a week or so ago, which had very minor changes in it which were designed to, if you like, 'modify' the business model of the micro-parties. It was stated at the time that that was not a complete solution; it was merely tinkering.

We put forward other proposals in terms of the SL voting system, for which we tried to get interest in the upper house. Other people in the upper house put up proposals relating to optional preferential voting (OPV), and indeed a cut-off point. To be honest with members of the parliament, I honestly do not understand what happened in the other place today, because the mover of the proposition in relation to OPV wound up voting against their own proposition, and I find that slightly peculiar.

Just for the record: had the mover of that proposition voted for their own proposition, or had the opposition voted for that proposition, we now would have had a serious solution to this gaming problem. So, I just want to make it clear to anybody who is vaguely interested in this topic that the government has done everything it possibly could have done to get a rectification of this problem ahead of the next election. What we have got in front of us is something which is by any measure suboptimal, but it was all we were able to get past the Legislative Council.

I do wish to acknowledge that the Greens have at least been consistent from day one in supporting OPV, and that consistency is something that I have come to value when dealing with people in another place. I am disappointed that it is something that those opposite perhaps did not turn their minds to thoroughly enough to understand and comprehend the implications of what they have had sitting in front of them—sitting right in front of them—and have refused to grasp, either because they do not get it, or they lack courage, or for some other reason that I cannot possibly think of. I just say to those opposite: I hope that they do not turn out to be the turkeys who couldn't wait for Christmas. Anyway, with that brief comment, can I say: even though it is not going to do the whole job, I accept all of the amendments from the Legislative Council.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT