HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-02-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Electoral (Prisoner Voting) Amendment Bill

Conference

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:16): I have to report that the managers have been to the conference on the bill, which was managed on behalf of the House of Assembly by the Attorney-General and Messrs Boyer, Brown, Cregan and Teague, and they there received from the managers on behalf of the House of Assembly the bill and the following resolution adopted by that house:

That the disagreement to the amendment of the Legislative Council be insisted on.

Thereupon, the managers for the two houses conferred together but no agreement was reached.

The PRESIDENT: As no recommendation from the conference has been made, the council, pursuant to standing order 338, must resolve either not to further insist on its requirements or lay the bill aside.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not further insist on its amendment.

In speaking to this motion that the council do not further insist on its amendment, it is a pretty clear issue that the council will for one last time be asked to resolve one way or another. That is, if the council does not further insist on its amendment, the bill will be able to proceed in the way the government originally intended. If the council in its majority votes against that particular position, the bill will be laid aside and there will be no legislative change at all.

There is a pretty stark and simple explanation to the difference between the two views on the bill. It is the position of some parties and individuals that any restriction on entitlement to vote in state elections should be limited to those persons in prison who carry a life sentence. The position that the government has maintained publicly and in the parliament is that that ignores some prisoners with very serious offences, offences so serious that the people of South Australia would be appalled at the prospect that these particular individuals would continue to be able to vote at the next state election for the party or parties that they prefer.

The Attorney-General and others have advised that for sentences such as manslaughter, criminal neglect, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14, persistent sexual abuse of a child, arson, aggravated robbery and indeed others, clearly members of the community would acknowledge that these are indeed very serious offences.

Where there is offending for which the person receives a sentence of three years or more, under the government bill we are saying they should not be entitled to vote for the party or candidates of their choice at the next state election. It is the position of the Labor Party and some other members that they want prisoners guilty of such offences to be able to vote at the next state election. The government believes this is not a proposition that the majority of the community, when this is explained to them, will support.

We make it clear that offences such as possessing child pornography, procuring a child to commit an indecent act and participating in a criminal organisation, again, are all examples of offences where the position of the Labor Party is that, if the member for Croydon in the House of Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition the Hon. Mr Maher in this particular chamber have their way, paedophiles, child pornographers, rapists, drug traffickers and the like will be entitled to vote for the Labor Party or for other parties at the next state election. It is a proposition that we think the majority in the community would find appalling.

There has been much publicity in recent times, in particular. We have a situation where clearly the member for Croydon, Mr Malinauskas, and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Hon. Mr Maher, are in essence asking the people of South Australia to support a position that people like Mr Shannon McCoole and Vivian Deboo should be eligible to vote for the Labor Party at the next election. The rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party and its members on these particular issues is now revealed starkly to all.

This is a simple issue. What I say to the many people who I am sure are watching the live streaming of the Legislative Council as we speak is that when we come to vote on this particular issue, those members who do not support the government side of this particular debate, those members who line up on the other side of the chamber are lining up to say they want Vivian Deboo, Shannon McCoole and the like, the paedophiles, the child pornographers, the drug traffickers of this world, to be able to vote for the Labor Party at the next election.

This is all this is about. It is about the Labor Party and others wanting to retain what they would say are the rights of these particular individuals—sexual deviants in some cases—people who they have publicly attacked and maligned, and I think with the support of most in the community in some of the statements they have made, as, indeed, many others have as well. But here we have a situation where the Labor Party are actually tested as to what their true intentions are in relation to these issues. Will they or will they not insist on a position that allows Deboo, McCoole and others to be able to continue to vote for the Labor Party and to vote at the next state election? The government strongly says, 'No, they should not be entitled to.'

This is the simple vote that we are about to have in the Legislative Council. Those who support the government will be saying no to Vivian Deboo, Shannon McCoole and the like. Those who oppose the government position will be saying they have rights and entitlements, they should be able to vote and the government is being mean to Mr Deboo, Mr McCoole and others by taking away their right to vote at the next state election.

I have given up on the Labor Party in this chamber. Their colours are often nailed to the mast when difficult issues like this come to be voted on but I would implore members of the crossbench who have so far supported the Labor Party position to now rethink. This is the last opportunity to rethink and say, 'Enough is enough.' The issue has been explored. There was no capacity to reach an agreement in the deadlock conference.

We have been through all the processes of the house and we now have one last opportunity to either say no to Deboo, no to McCoole and no to the other sexual deviants, or do we go along with the Labor Party as the Labor Party would wish? I would urge members of the crossbench to rethink their position and to support the principal position that the government is putting.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I am speaking to the proposition that the council do insist upon its amendment. The Leader of the Government in this place has deliberately mischaracterised this debate. This is about community safety. The government was asked repeatedly in the debate on the bill, 'What evidence is there that these measures will do anything to make the community safer?' Every single time the answer was: nothing, there is none. This measure does nothing for community safety, not a thing.

That is what this is about: the people and the voters of South Australia expect their representatives to do things that make the community safer. The government offered no evidence that this does anything to that end. In fact, there were submissions on the bill from bodies like the Law Society that this could have the opposite effect and could make the community less safe with these measures.

The Leader of the Government talked about being serious on things like child sex offenders. That is something we will take on with the government every single day of the week. The Leader of the Government talked about Vivian Deboo. Let's have a look at what the two parties' views have been about this. There are measures that the opposition put forward that mean that Vivian Deboo would have no chance of getting court-ordered home detention.

Just yesterday, members in the other chamber voted on this and every single member of the government voted on a measure that would allow Vivian Deboo court-ordered home detention. Every member of the Labor opposition voted on a measure that would absolutely ensure that Vivian Deboo could not serve his sentence at home.

There is a track record on this and on community safety, and the government has been found wanting and on the wrong side of this matter. We will have an opportunity in this chamber to vote on things that will make the community safer, to vote on whether Vivian Deboo should have a chance of getting out of gaol. The government so far has voted to allow Vivian Deboo a chance of getting out of gaol. These are the issues the people of South Australia care about.

Look at other matters, such as the Colin Humphrys case. When Colin Humphrys was due to be released, even though expert medical reports to the court said that he was unwilling or unable to control his sexual instincts, what was the response from this government? The Attorney-General went on radio and said, 'Let's see what the court does.' The Attorney-General was willing to toss a coin, 'Just see how it goes. Maybe he'll get out and maybe he won't.' This is how seriously the Attorney-General takes community safety.

We were not prepared to do that. Community safety is what people expect us in this place to have as our highest priority. We put forward a private members' bill but the Attorney-General said it was unnecessary, 'We don't need that. We'll take the chance. Maybe Colin Humphrys will get out and maybe he won't. That's not our concern.' Fortunately, the Attorney-General, after a Monday cabinet meeting, was obviously rolled and we had that measure put in place.

We welcome the debate about who is more serious about community safety, who is more serious about protecting the community from serious child sex offenders, and it is not the government.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (14:29): The choice the Treasurer is effectively putting to us is that we need to do one of two things: one is that we need to add to the punishment already meted out by the courts to those serving terms of imprisonment; we need to add to their punishment so that their abandonment by society is complete for the term of their incarceration.

The other side, the flip side of the coin, is that regardless of the crimes that people have committed—the seriousness of those crimes—we do leave the door a little ajar to their eventual rehabilitation back into society. We are talking about people, unless they die in gaol, all of whom, every one of them, is coming back into society. When it comes, as the honourable Leader of the Opposition has been saying, to whether we are safer or not, I for one would feel safer about people coming back into society who have been rehabilitated, reformed and are able to re-enter society. Adding to their punishment by effectively denying all interaction with the electoral process I do not think adds to our safety.

I think it is all very well and good for the Treasurer to reel off a list of heinous crimes—abhorrent crimes, things that he has no argument with anyone in this room that they are not serious crimes that are not deserving of punishment—but he is somehow suggesting that unless we toe the government's line we are not being serious enough, we are not punishing these people enough, because we have not yet stripped them of all their civic rights.

The Treasurer made a comment which—I cannot speak for other parties—somehow suggested that unless people are on the government side we are somehow courting the paedophile vote. I for one have never stood outside a gaol on election day with how-to-vote cards. It probably would be pretty slow traffic unless they let the prisoners out to take the card. I am not aware of any parties that are actively courting the prisoner vote. So I think to try to paint it as some sort of a partisan exercise—that prisoners are more inclined to vote for one area of politics rather than the other—is just a silly argument.

The Greens' position always was that we did not support this bill at all: we did not support any part of it. But when the Labor opposition came and said, 'Look, we are prepared to strip voting rights from people serving life terms,' we accepted that, and I think that should still be the position that the Legislative Council retains.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:31): I think, like other honourable members here, our hope was that the deadlock conference would be able to come to a compromise position that better reflected the views of every member of this place, and clearly that has not been the case. I have to agree with the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell in that the suggestion that anyone on the crossbench who is not supporting the government's position on this somehow supports paedophiles or other serious offenders is, with respect, pretty offensive, actually.

What I put to the Treasurer today is an invitation for the government to go back to the drawing board, to consult with members of this place and to consult more widely and to come back with a model that better reflects the views that have been expressed in this place on this issue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:33): I thank members for their contribution to this particular debate. What I will ask people who have been following this particular debate to note is that the contribution of the leader of the Labor Party, the opposition, did not address the issues at all. He proffered no argument at all as to why Vivian Deboo or Shannon McCoole or indeed others guilty of heinous crimes are entitled to have a vote. He wanted to talk about every other issue—other than the issue he is being asked to vote on here.

Why did he choose to ignore that argument? Because he has no argument. There is no argument from the Australian Labor Party for why people like this should be entitled to the vote or why we as a community, we as a parliament, should not take away their right to vote as a result of the serious offences.

It happens in the commonwealth parliament with the commonwealth elections. Why should they be entitled to vote for or against members and parties in a state election when they are not entitled to in a commonwealth election? That is the simple proposition, and I draw anybody's attention who either has listened to, viewed or reads this particular debate, to look at the substance or the lack of substance in what the Leader of the Opposition said and note that there was no argument offered at all as to why Deboo, McCoole and other sexual deviants like them should be entitled to keep their right to vote at the coming state election.

The PRESIDENT: Honourable members, for the point of clarity, the question before the council is actually in the negative, in this instance. The Treasurer moved that the council do not further insist on its amendment, and that is how I put the motion in this instance to the council. So the question before the council is that the council do not further insist on its amendment.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 9

Noes 12

Majority 3

AYES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller)
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES
Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Parnell, M.C.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

Motion thus negatived; bill laid aside.

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