HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (COST OF BY-ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is identical to the bill of the same name that the Greens introduced in 2009. It relates to the cost of by-elections brought about by the unnecessary early retirement of members, and it is designed to act as a disincentive to political parties to use taxpayer-funded by-elections as a method of party renewal or succession planning. In the lower house of this parliament, and in most other parliaments, if a local member retires or resigns, a by-election is held to fill that casual vacancy.

My bill aims to sheet home the cost of unnecessary by-elections to the political party to which the retiring member belongs. If passed this bill would provide that, in the event of early retirement, in the absence of a good reason (and I will come back to what that means later), the political party to which the member belongs will have two choices: either it can pay the cost of the by-election from its own party resources; or, it does not field a candidate in the subsequent by-election.

It will come as no surprise to members to know that the impetus for bringing this bill back at this time relates to the likely by-elections to be held in the seats of Port Adelaide and Ramsay as a result of the foreshadowed retirement from the House of Assembly of minister Foley and premier Rann.

Before I go on to describe the current circumstances of those likely by-elections, I would like to emphasise that this bill is not aimed at the Labor Party or any particular party; it is aimed at all parties. In fact, when I first introduced this bill, it was around the time of the departure of the former member for Frome, the Hon. Rob Kerin, who retired early. He was quoted in the local paper, The Plains Producer as follows:

'For a long time I had been holding on simply to save a by-election,' he said, 'However, the time has come where I feel burnt out with politics and it would be disingenuous to continue. I feel I am no longer able to give the electorate what they deserve and should therefore stand aside'.

Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, it did not go quite as it had hoped, and now we have a new Independent member for Frome. The situation in Port Adelaide is fairly similar. Greg Kelton wrote the following in The Advertiser on 6 September:

In a move that caught many people by surprise, Mr Foley, who appeared close to tears, said it was time to go and he was 'very tired'. 'I haven't got the energy to continue as a minister,' he said.

Only last week, Mr Foley, while on an overseas trip, had said he had no intention of quitting parliament although there was growing pressure within the party for him to go at the same time as Mr Rann.

On 5 September, The Advertiser reported the following:

Mr Foley told a media conference at the State Administration Centre he was 'tired' and did not have the energy to remain a minister. 'It has been a difficult 18 months for me personally,' he said. 'I turn 51 in a few weeks; it is time for me to step out and make a new future outside parliament. I am looking forward to being an ordinary citizen'.

He said he would step down from cabinet on the same day as Mr Rann because there was need for 'generational change'.

The article continues:

'This is the right time for Kevin Foley,' he said. 'I guess in many ways you could say I'm being a little selfish. At this point in my life, I'm putting my own personal self interests ahead...of those of the government. Right now, I would prefer to forge a new life than to remain in government another two years.' Mr Foley's actual departure date from politics remains unclear.

He said at one stage that he hoped to leave parliament before Christmas but later amended that to say he could stay on until Mr Rann left early next year, so there could be two by-elections on the same day.

It is probably worth pointing out that there are two intermingled issues here. One is the honourable member's departure from cabinet, which is not impacted at all by my bill. In fact, members can come and go from cabinet as they see fit, or as their leaders see fit, is probably more like it. The other issue is a member's pending retirement from the parliament. I should also point out that there is nothing in my bill that prevents any member of the House of Assembly from resigning or retiring at any time they choose. Any member can resign for any reason.

What my bill does is sheet home the cost of unnecessary by-elections to the political party responsible. Whether it is the Hon. Rob Kerin in the seat of Frome, the Hon. Kevin Foley in the seat of Port Adelaide or the Premier in the seat of Ramsay, if somebody has stood for parliament, promising to stay for a full term, and they decide to retire early, taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab to find their replacement.

However, we know that members of parliament get sick, some even die in office. Other members of parliament have carer responsibilities which they were not aware of when they were elected, or which become more demanding after their election, and, for those reasons, they choose to retire early. I want to protect those people and their parties from either having to stay in parliament or paying the cost of a by-election. I think they are reasonable reasons for someone to retire early, but I do not think that simply being tired or having had enough are reasons for the taxpayer to foot the bill for a by-election. I would like to address the question of the cost of by-elections—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: What if they're not in a party?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Although it is unparliamentary to interject, the Hon. John Gazzola said, 'What if they're not in a party?' The point is that, if they are not in a party, then there is not anyone, other than the taxpayer, to foot the bill. If they go, they go, and that is it. They will not be contesting the by-election and, because they are not in a party, no-one from the party that they are not in will contest the by-election either way.

I know I am going to get into trouble for responding, but Mr Darley is a member of the upper house of parliament, and, if he were to chose to go, that would be a very different question, and it is not in my bill.

Coming back—because I know it is unparliamentary to respond to the Hon. John Gazzola's interjections—to the cost of by-elections, because they are not that common it can be difficult to predict the cost. We know that the last by-election, the Frome by-election, cost taxpayers $220,000. The Ramsay and Port Adelaide by-elections may be a little cheaper, both being metropolitan seats, and there may be some shared cost relating to advertising, however, the cost, inevitably, will be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most likely around the $400,000 mark. So, we are pushing half a million dollars.

As for the mechanics of the bill, and I offer this in lieu of a formal explanation of clauses because it is a very simple bill, this is how it would work in practice. If a member of a registered political party retires early then the Electoral Commissioner would ask the party to pay the estimated cost of the by-election, unless the Electoral Commissioner was satisfied that there was some good reason why the party should not pay. The actual words in the bill are:

The Electoral Commissioner may determine that this section does not apply to the resignation of a member if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the resignation was reasonably necessary due to circumstances beyond the member's control...

It then goes on to provide some examples, including:

If the retirement was due to a medical condition of the member or of a person who relies on the member for care, the Electoral Commissioner may determine that this section does not apply.

In other words, the section that requires the party to pay. So, if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the resignation was reasonably necessary due to circumstances beyond the member's control then the section does not apply.

My bill is not aimed at trying to force the unwell to stay in parliament. It is not designed to force people to choose between parliament and their caring responsibilities. If people have good reason to retire then the normal course of events, which is that the taxpayer foots the bill, should apply, but if there is no good reason and the party does not want to pay for the cost of the by-election then, under my bill, that party forfeits the right to run a candidate in the forthcoming election.

When I raised this last time, a number of members, and no doubt the Hon. John Gazzola included, said that it was undemocratic and harsh.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I cannot help it, Mr President, I am sorry. This has nothing to do with the Hon. Mr Darley, who is a member of the Legislative Council where we do not have by-elections because a by-election would require an election of the entire state. So, this has nothing to do with the replacement of members in the upper house.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I need some protection, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable whip will whip himself.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As I said, members might feel that this is undemocratic and harsh, but it seems to me that where there is pushing half a million dollars of taxpayers' money being effectively wasted because someone does not last their full term and has no good reason for retiring then it is neither harsh nor undemocratic.

Of course, if the party wants to run a candidate it can and it will pay the cost of the by-election. The point of this bill is that unnecessary by-elections are expensive, they are inconvenient and the least that we can do as a parliament is to reduce the burden on the public purse by requiring political parties to pick up the tab in those circumstances. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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