HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 May 2018.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:57): I rise to speak to the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill 2018. This bill fulfils another Marshall Liberal government election commitment to prevent prisoners who are serving a term of three years' imprisonment or longer from voting in state elections. We are doing this because committing an offence that attracts a prison term of three years or longer is so serious that the consequences ought to go beyond imprisonment to forfeiting their voting rights for the duration of their sentence.

These changes bring South Australia into line with every other jurisdiction in Australia, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory. This bill provides that any prisoner, including a person on home detention, who is serving a sentence of three years or longer, is ineligible to vote at state elections. The bill does not change the enrolment status of prisoners. After release, prisoners will be able to vote again, and this is consistent with the principle that punishment should not extend beyond the original sentence.

The bill complies with our constitutional obligations, as held by the High Court in Roach v Electoral Commissioner. I note that, as of April 2018, the bill would have affected the voting rights of approximately 1,400 out of a total of 3,114 prisoners. This is certainly apt in my electorate, where there is a prison. Mobilong Prison was designed in 1984 and is situated on 50 hectares on Maurice Road in Murray Bridge. It was considered Australia's first open-plan village concept prison, and was completed and opened in 1987. Mobilong was designed to be an educational and vocational training prison with original workshop opportunities, including metalwork, woodwork, spray painting and plastics moulding.

Interestingly, the prison's original capacity was for only 160 male prisoners in single-cell accommodation. This is very different from the capacity of the prison now, which is 472 inmates. By the late 1990s, additional cells had been constructed and double bunks had been installed into 60 cells. As a result, the prison's capacity was 240 and it was considered low to medium security.

In September 2006, the then state Labor government announced that they would be building a new prison adjacent to the existing facility. This was a disgraceful announcement, and I have mentioned in this place before how, on budget day, because it was an election year—it was the year I came into this place—the front page of The Advertiser stated that there were going to be new high-security prisons in Murray Bridge: the Yatala replacement, a new women's prison and a forensic facility costing over $500 million. The shame of it all was that the former attorney-general, the former member for Croydon, thought, 'We will run this as a front page. Just pay the fee to The Advertiser and happy days.'

Guess what happened? It all fell flat on the previous Labor government's face. Not only did they not consult the local mayor, Allan Arbon, who was a very good man, or the local community, but they also did not consult the Public Service Association. Thereby, they did not consult the potential prison guards who might have been transferred down there, and who certainly made their opinions clear when they came to council meetings at Murray Bridge, expressing the view that they did not want to travel 85 kilometres to work.

They were typical Labor bullyboy tactics of just announcing and defending. It all fell over, and then there were tens of millions of dollars that had to be handed out in compensation to people who had put in bids to build the prison. It was another big plan by Labor that fell flat on its face, just like the Gillman development.

In saying that, what this development was supposed to have done was replace the outdated facilities at the Yatala Labour Prison and the Adelaide Women's Prison. As I indicated, the estimated cost of the new prison was above $500 million. The prison would have included a 760-cell men's prison, expandable to 940 cells throughout the life of the contract, as well as a 150-cell women's prison, expandable to 200 cells. In addition to the above, there was going to be a $40 million, 40-bed forensic medical health centre, which was listed to be built at Mobilong, replacing James Nash House at Oakden.

Any development of this kind requires community consultation and vital services, such as health, public transport and road infrastructure upgrades, which all need to be considered as part of the process. I will go into more detail in regard to that in a minute but, certainly, the three main ones were road upgrades—

Mr PICTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, point of order: as interesting as this is, as all of his speeches are, the member for Hammond has been giving a speech for the last seven minutes on proposals for different prisons, which is not at all related to the discussion of voting rights in the bill. I am wondering if you can return him to the subject of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully, member for Hammond. I understand you are talking in general terms about the prison system in South Australia, which is quite within the brief of the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection from that withering onslaught. This is going to have a significant impact on the voting population of prisoners in my district, so obviously it does have a direct impact because there would be more numbers coming into my area.

The three main services were going to be road upgrades, especially close to Mobilong; public transport and Metro ticketing, so we can get people there to visit their families, and people can come up from Adelaide on the Metro-ticketed buses and get there in good time; and the expansion of health facilities in Murray Bridge, noting that there would have been health facility clinics in the prison.

All these things are vital when we talk about the potential for prisoner voting because you have to have community consultation to have prisoners there in the first place. You cannot go in willy-nilly saying you are going to do this and that without those conversations around what is going to happen or what is proposed.

I will read to the house an extract from a strategic community impact study completed by the Rural City of Murray Bridge, which details the factors which need to be considered with any such development. In regard to this increase of prisoners and, therefore, the voting population of prisoners in Murray Bridge, it would have helped increase the forecast population to beyond 30,000 people in Murray Bridge, which is nearly 2½ times the 2001 population figure. The study states:

Such a quantum increase in population clearly places a substantial demand on infrastructure. The capabilities of existing service, transport and social infrastructure have been reviewed in this context and in the most part, will require substantial upgrades to meet the forecast future demand. This will in turn require considerable planning and commitments from the relevant service authorities and providers.

A description of possible potential infrastructure upgrade requirements is provided within the Urban Growth Plan addressing water supply and water quality, sewer, stormwater, telecommunications, electricity, gas, transport, and social.

The study then addresses forecast population growth in line with these extra prisoners who have the potential to vote in the Rural City of Murray Bridge, stating it is:

…likely to generate significant demand for housing with between 6,400 and 7,400 new dwellings to be required by 2026.

[Department for Correctional Services] estimates that 65% of current Mobilong staff reside in Murray Bridge.

There was also:

Expected significant in-migration of workers to Murray Bridge combined with the recruitment of staff from within Murray Bridge.

Assumptions that 65% of New Prisons Precinct staff will live in Murray Bridge, with some already resident in the community.'

So that creates:

Theoretical demand for up to 250-300 new dwellings in Murray Bridge; and an additional 120 dwellings in surrounding areas (e.g. Tailem Bend, Mannum, Karoonda, Wellington or Mt Barker).

Equating that with the average household size of 2.45 people would result in approximately 650 new people living in Murray Bridge, aligned with the Corrections precinct, which would have many prisoners there with the capacity to vote.

That additional income and expenditure with the approximately 650 new people living in the Rural City of Murray Bridge would also increase the demand for community facilities, including schooling and recreation. It was predicted back then that 35 per cent of staff, or 120 persons, will live outside Murray Bridge, resulting in an additional 295 persons living in the surrounding area, with associated additional jobs in those towns.

I spoke before about the impact on transport in the area. It was envisaged that visitors will be able to visit seven days a week, with some relying on public transport. Corrections staff may also require public transport. There was also a desire that regular transport connections between Adelaide and Murray Bridge-Mobilong be strengthened and cost effective, if not free, for visitors. Certainly that is why I have campaigned for metro ticketing, and we are going to do a feasibility study on that so that people can access Murray Bridge.

Mr BIGNELL: Point of order: it is about relevance. Talking about transit tickets for people getting into town has nothing to do with what this bill is about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, I have already ruled on this. It is reasonable for a member to talk to the bill in relation to his or her electorate as well.

Mr BIGNELL: Sorry, the public transport needs of people who work in the prison system has nothing to do with what this bill is about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, member for Mawson, my understanding of what the member for Hammond is contributing is in relation to a prison that is within his electorate, so I am prepared to accept that.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The proposal to increase prisoner capacity, and obviously then more prisoners eligible to vote, in my area would increase the social effects on the town. There were community concerns around the safety and security of the prison. There were concerns about the likelihood of families and prisoners moving to the area and concerns around the likelihood of discharged prisoners remaining in the area, and obviously the possibility of stigma associated with being linked to a gaol town.

There were also concerns about the effect on visitor accommodation and emergency crisis accommodation; the effect on public and low-cost housing; the effect on public transport services, which I have already outlined; the effect on crime rates; and the effect on existing educational, health and welfare services. Obviously, with an increasing prisoner population and with more prisoners being eligible to vote, there is the provision of education jobs for all those staff needed in the region.

There is the ongoing need for an additional 51 jobs in the education sector, opportunities for additional TAFE courses for prisoners and families of prison staff, and the potential requirement for up to 270 additional places from preschool to TAFE and/or regional tertiary institutions. Since the proposal of the prison back in 2006 and with more demand, potentially over 1,000 more prisoners in the area and with their eligibility to vote, there would be extra demand for health services. So there would be a constant need for professional health workers in prisons.

Even though I have already noted that new prisons will have a self-sufficient medical clinic, prisoners requiring specialist treatment will have to be sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. New prisoner emergencies may have to be treated at the Murray Bridge Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. Deputy Speaker, you would know that I have managed to secure $7 million to have the new emergency department built at Murray Bridge. That is excellent for the town and the regional community.

In regard to more prisoners being able to vote in the area, the expanded health system and hospital need to be considered in that context—the predicted ongoing impact of 52 additional jobs in the health and community services sector, including an additional full-time doctor and six nurses, to total 60 doctors and 333 nurses by 2026. Obviously, there is an increased need for disability health services.

In regard to expanded prisons and more voter eligibility because of that, the community expects the police presence to be reinforced. Back then, the new police station needed to be a high priority and I am glad to say that that has opened in recent years with room for the new courthouse. The capacity of fire and ambulance services to attend to emergencies and incidents will need to be reviewed as the population increases. In regard to community services, an increased population of eligible prison voters would mean an immediate effect on the provision of community and social services, for example, council recreation facilities, library services and support groups.

In 2004, there was a report done into the establishment of independent living units at Mobilong Prison. I think it was called the Ross Unit. This was a 50-bed trustee unit that was built there. Over time, that has been made not just into single rooms sharing a kitchen and lounge; they have had some cells doubled up, so there are at least 70 in what was originally 50-bed accommodation. On my first visit, I thought that this was a long way from chaining convicts in hulks and sending them across the sea. If you want to have some positive reinforcement for people to be rehabilitated, this can send them on their way, but they have to go through positive behaviour to be eligible to be in this unit.

An additional 104 beds were opened at Mobilong Prison by the previous minister in 2017, which included also an officer's station, interview rooms, more beds in the Ross Unit and biometric screening for people to get access to the prison as visitors. With those few brief remarks, I commend the bill and note the potential impact and impacts of growing prisoner populations and their eligibility to vote, especially in the seat of Hammond.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Harvey): The member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:17): Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. You are fulfilling your role well there. I congratulate you on taking that seat. I, too, rise to speak to the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill 2018. I also inform the house, as was the case with the member for Hammond, that I, too, have a major prison facility within the—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Did you visit with how-to-vote cards?

Mr TRELOAR: —I will come to that, Attorney—electorate of Flinders. It is a significant prison. It has capacity of in excess of 200 prisoners and, of course, it is also a great employer, but I will go back to the bill, as I know the opposition will be keen for us to talk to it. The bill fulfils an election commitment that the Marshall Liberal team had in the lead-up to the recent March 2018 election and that is to prevent prisoners who are serving a term of three years imprisonment or longer from voting in state elections. We need to understand why we are doing this.

In recognising that a prison term of three years or longer is a serious offence and the consequences ought to go beyond that of their imprisonment, it will actually bring us into line with other jurisdictions by having prisoners forfeit their voting rights for the duration of their sentences here in South Australia. This will bring us into line with other states and also the commonwealth. The anomaly is that prisoners, of course, in South Australia cannot vote in federal elections but are able to vote in state elections at the moment. With the exception of the ACT, we are now coming into line with other states.

The bill provides that any prisoner, including a person on home detention who is serving a sentence of three years or longer, is ineligible to vote at state elections. It is recognising that somebody who has incurred a sentence of home detention is also caught up in this. It does not change the enrolment status of prisoners. The prisoner remains enrolled and, of course, as soon as the prisoner is released then they are once again eligible to vote, and that is consistent with the principle that punishment should not extend beyond the original sentence.

It is a reasonable expectation amongst people we have spoken with in the broader community that this will have support. It is noted that as of April 2018 the bill would have affected the voting rights of approximately 1,400 out of just over 3,000 prisoners within the state. It is a significant cohort, but there will be many who will remain in the prison system who are able to continue to vote.

I have spoken about home detention and, of course, there are many people out there who are serving their sentences on home detention. This bill recognises that this, too, is a serious sentence from the court and will impact their right to vote just as any other type of custodial sentence would. The rationale for this is that home detention is, for the purposes of the Sentencing Act, treated as a form of custody.

It is also going to apply to a young person who is serving a sentence of three years or more in a training centre. I suspect that a majority of young people who are in a training centre are not of a majority age, not of the age of 18, and so are unlikely to be on the voting roll but there will be situations where that does occur. Importantly, the bill will not apply to people who are detained under the mental impairment provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Regardless of whether a person has committed multiple offences, the disqualification will apply to them for the total period of time for which they have been sentenced to imprisonment when it exceeds three years and they are in custody at the close of rolls. In other words, once a person has finished their custodial sentence their rights are restored, including the right to vote. They remain on the roll and once they are released they will be eligible to vote. South Australia is the only state that does not oppose restrictions upon prisoners voting and it is appropriate that we fall into line with other jurisdictions.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, when I was first elected, I had the opportunity to visit Port Lincoln Prison. It is a substantial building just over Winters Hill on the outskirts of Port Lincoln. The prison was built first in 1966, and I am old enough to remember it being built. There was some apprehension on my part, particularly given that I was a five-year-old boy, and my grandfather had great delight in taking me on tours of the building site, knowing full well that was going to become a prison.

It has turned into a significant institution. It was recently expanded and the accommodation increased. Originally, it was built to house about 90 male prisoners, both medium and low-security prisoners, but recently, under the Yellowfin project in February 2015, with new accommodation and an expansion it is able now to house a maximum of 200 prisoners.

I visited there in the lead-up to the 2010 election with the then shadow minister, the Hon. Terry Stephens from the other place. It was my first opportunity to visit a prison and, once again, apprehension set in because you never know quite what the experience is going to be like. It was somewhat daunting, I do not doubt that. However, that said, it was a privilege to be able to tour the facility and see firsthand how the prison at Port Lincoln operates.

I also visited in 2016, it must have been, when the minister for police and corrections, as he was then, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas in the other place, visited the Port Lincoln Prison to celebrate its 50th year birthday. Of course, many of those who had been involved in the prison over the previous 50 years were present for that day, as were a lot of the security people, so it was quite an event.

The interesting thing about Port Lincoln Prison is that it is accommodated on and within some 200 hectares of farming property, so it is a working farm. Being on Eyre Peninsula, it grows wheat, barley, canola and all those things. It has a farm manager in place and prisoners are for the most part gainfully engaged on the farm production systems. The 200 hectares, about 500 acres, is a big area of land. It was stony country in the first instance—limestone and Lincoln weed. I remember in the early days, pre stone rollers, the prisoners spending a lot of time ripping and picking stones. There was certainly plenty of work for them to do.

There is also a commercial garden in place. It produces a wide range of vegetables, which are used within Port Lincoln Prison. They are also sold to the local community through contracts with local supermarkets, vegetable retail outlets, hotels and restaurants. The prison, the prisoners and those working at the prison are very much involved in the local community. It is a really important part of serving time and also of rehabilitation, I suspect.

Port Lincoln on the West Coast is famous for its aquaculture. There are aquaculture industry partnerships with Port Lincoln Prison, producing such things as oyster baskets, oyster cages and other custom-made products upon request. I think it is a really good example of how prisons can incorporate themselves into the local community. It is also a big employer, as I said earlier. In fact, a little ironically, the Labor candidate for Flinders at the last election was a security guard at Port Lincoln Prison. It is certainly a big employer, and those I talk to say that it is an excellent job and that they are pleased to be working there.

I have a friend who works on the prison campus in education. Of course, we are all aware, and it is no surprise, that prisoners often have quite low levels of literacy and numeracy. That is something that is being addressed through the provision of education on campus. An indicator of one's success in life can be one's level of numeracy and literacy. For prisoners to have the opportunity to improve their skills, their basic skills in literacy and numeracy, while they are incarcerated is a good thing. I understand that many of them take up the opportunity. I had an invitation recently to visit once again to look at the education facility at Port Lincoln Prison.

That is all well and good, but back to the bill. Of course, it is significant and will impact significantly on those who are serving sentences. It will mean that they will not be able to vote in state elections. It does have support in the broader community. It comes on the back of an election commitment the Marshall team made prior to the recent state election. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:28): I rise today to talk about the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill. I signify my wholehearted support for this bill. I see it as common sense. It is good to see the new government exhibiting some common sense after a long wait to see any from the previous government.

This bill will bring South Australia in line with all other states in Australia, with the sole exception of the Australian Capital Territory, in this specific area of law. This bill will ensure that prisoners serving more than three years in gaol forfeit their right to vote, such has been the seriousness of the crime for which they have been found guilty. In my opinion, a sentence of incarceration for three years or more does indicate sufficient seriousness.

It does not mean that they will not be eligible to vote upon their release, which is also an important point and an important part of this bill. This bill ensures that the person's right to vote is not removed forevermore, only whilst they are incarcerated for the three years or more. The bill does not affect a person's enrolment status or their ability to enrol, which is another important point.

I believe this bill is in line with society's belief that once a person has served their gaol time, paid for their crime if you will, they have every right to rejoin society and get on with his or her life. Gaol is not, after all, only a punitive measure but also a rehabilitative one, and this Marshall Liberal government is not proposing to punish the detainee after they have served their time and been rehabilitated.

It is a privilege to vote in this country, and this bill reflects the importance of that point. It is a privilege to vote in our democratic society and we have fought for and to retain this right for years and years over centuries. It is a constitutionally enshrined right to vote and everyone should have the ability to cast their vote.

When being found guilty of a serious crime, one carrying a sentence of more than three years, one should expect to forfeit that right, in my honest opinion. There have to be deterrents to committing crimes of sufficient impact to warrant in excess of three years' incarceration, and I would suggest that losing your right to vote is as powerful a deterrent as there is. I am sure many South Australians would join me in relishing the right to vote and always appreciating the opportunity that we have in Australia and in South Australia.

In other countries around the world, particularly some of the socialist ones you find around the globe, people have their right to vote tampered with and often removed in total. We are lucky that we enjoy the freedom to vote here, and we acknowledge that not every country has that same freedom. I am sure that every South Australian enjoys that privilege, as I do, and I am certain that, with the passage of this legislation, would-be criminals who appreciate their right to vote and enjoy their right to vote will reconsider their inclination to commit such an offence. I mean that with all sincerity. That is the base belief behind this bill, and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

The bill also fulfils another Marshall government pre-election commitment to prevent prisoners who are serving a three-year imprisonment or longer from voting in South Australian elections, and I am a staunch supporter of delivering all promises made during the election campaign, which provides me with an opportune time to touch on the other commitments made by the Liberal government in the electorate of Narungga throughout the election campaign. I am looking forward to delivering increased funding for our regional roads, better health services and lower of costs of living and doing business.

Mr BIGNELL: Point of order: relevance. This has nothing to do with the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. I ask the member for Narungga to at least bring his comments back close to what the bill is about.

Mr ELLIS: I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I made the point and I am quite content with that. I will continue on the topic at hand. I reiterate that, after release, prisoners will be able to vote again, which is consistent with the principle that punishment should not extend beyond the original sentence. Once a detainee has served their time and has proved they are rehabilitated, they should be free to leave the prison and rejoin the community.

Others, like Colin Humphrys, who cannot prove they are rehabilitated, should not be free to leave gaol and should be there to continue their rehabilitation. I know that mums and dads around the state are thankful that this Marshall Liberal government, by passing legislation through the lower house recently, has ensured that Mr Humphrys and his kind are not free to leave the gaol, a wonderful initiative from the Marshall Liberal government and the Attorney-General in that regard.

Back to the legislation at hand, the Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill. This legislation will ensure the basic right for an Australian to vote—a right that people of all nationalities do not necessarily enjoy—once they leave prison. I would like to reinforce that this government does not intend to take away the voting rights of prisoners indefinitely, only for the period of their incarceration. Once they have been rehabilitated, they should be free to go and enjoy the rights and freedoms of normal community members, with some obvious exceptions.

It is interesting to note that, had this bill been in effect at April 2018, it would have changed the voting rights for an estimated 1,400 people. This is not an insignificant change to make and impacts many people. It is not lightly moved, as it is everyone's fundamental democratic right to vote once they turn 18—a rite of passage, if you like—but it must also be understood that committing an offence that attracts a prison term of three years or longer is, and should be, so serious that the consequences ought to go beyond imprisonment to forfeiting their right to vote for the duration of their sentence.

There is not a prison within the electorate of Narungga but there is interest from some sectors in having one. Last June, the Wakefield Regional Council CEO, Jason Kuchel, publicly called for the government to consider building one within the Narungga electorate in the Port Wakefield Balaklava district, and it was included in the Wakefield Regional Council's strategic management plan as a key economic generator.

The headline at the time in the Plains Producer, a great weekly newspaper in Balaklava which is printed in Kadina, was 'Prison Vision' and the story outlined the CEO's discussions with the then corrections minister Peter Malinauskas regarding a prison proposal. The CEO, Jason Kuchel, believed a gaol was a realistic proposal and one that would ease perceived pressure on the state to develop a new gaol to meet the unfortunate future demand.

As an aside, the point was made that if not for the issues around power and energy supply that had dominated public policy development and discussions in this place since the blackout of 2016, such a proposal and work towards the development of a new prison for the state would have possibly been more advanced. Yes, there have been many consequences of the power blackout and it has impacted on progress in many areas, on many proposals, on many visions for progress, across multiple portfolios—another story for another day perhaps. I do not want to get pulled up for relevance again.

There are recognised stresses on our state's penitentiary system and demand for more beds in all prisons, sadly, in order to meet projected demand. Mr Kuchel's point that the Wakefield Regional Council area would be ideal for such a facility is a valid one and one that I agree with in principle, given its proximity to the city and the little potential social impact a new prison would have in the relatively sparsely populated area.

Indeed, regions within two hours of Adelaide such as Murray Bridge, which is already home to a prison which we have heard about already this morning, are ideal for such facilities as they serve as major employers for the rural areas and good drivers of infrastructure development. Modern-day gaols are generally set apart from the townships and there are hundreds of jobs associated with them, as stated by Mr Kuchel at the time, and I quote from the local press:

The initial build alone is several hundred million dollars, then there's the ongoing maintenance, uniforms and linen that need cleaning.

Mr Kuchel cited a Canadian town, Grande Cache, which was experiencing economic issues before its state government built a gaol nearby. I quote again from the Plains Producer in an article written by editor Les Pearson:

'It was a coal mining town similar in size to Balaklava that was suffering due to fluctuating commodity prices,' Mr Kuchel said. 'The Alberta government built a gaol there and it stabilised the local population and economy.'

The gaol was not the only major economic option on the Wakefield Regional Council's wish list. The Plains Producer article also highlighted that a zoo was featured in the council's strategic management plan as well, interestingly enough.

Mr Kuchel was making the point that, rather than stipulating to developers that this is what should happen, it is saying we are open to a variety of large-scale options for the good of the region which is commendable and responsible forward planning. I believe the Wakefield Regional Council was onto something when it included a prison vision for its region and, with Port Wakefield just an easy hour's drive from the city, I agree it would be a reasonable location for servicing the facility and an easy commute for relatives looking to visit inmates.

Back to the bill at hand one more time, South Australia is currently the only state, with the exception of the ACT, that does not impose restrictions upon prisoners' voting. It goes against my principles of justice that this should not be so. I look forward to the passage of this bill and I look forward to hearing from all the other members as to their views on it. I implore those other members in this house to offer similar support for the amendments to section 68 of the Electoral Act.

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