Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011
Hon Norman Moore; Hon Ken Travers; Hon Alison Xamon; Chairman
Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair; Hon Norman Moore (Minister for Electoral Affairs) in charge of the bill.
Clauses 1 to 4 put and passed.
Clause 5: Section 64 replaced —
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —
Page 4, line 12 — To delete “second” and insert —
"first"
This amendment has been moved on the advice of the Electoral Commissioner for fixing a date for polling and the date for the issue of the writ. Given the nature of the calendar, including the effect of leap years, the period of the election varies from 25 days to 32 days. Ordinarily the minimum time between the issue of the writ and the polling day under current legislation is 31 days. Historically, in the past 13 by-elections and state general elections the time between the issue of the writ and the polling day has been 40 days. By amending the bill to issue the writ now on the first Wednesday of February, in lieu of the second Wednesday of February, the period of the election will vary from 32 days to 39 days, which reflects the state’s historical average. Under a 25-day election period, taking into account the close of nominations, the close of rolls and the production of ballot papers, the Electoral Commission will be allowed only 10 days to compile, print, bind and distribute the electoral roll, to distribute ballot papers by post interstate and overseas, and to conduct mobile polling in remote communities and of special institutions. This pressure of time on Electoral Commission operations could work against the timely provision of voting services to all electors across the state. With this amendment, if the chamber agrees, the 2013 state general election will be conducted over 32 days. For interest, the 2017 and 2021 elections will be conducted over 39 days and the 2025 election over 32 days. I look forward to the 2025 election of 32 days, Mr Chairman!
Hon ALISON XAMON: The Greens (WA) will support the amendment moved by the Minister for Electoral Affairs for the reasons that have been enunciated.
Amendment put and passed.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I move —
Page 4, line 12 — To delete “second Wednesday of February” and insert —
"third Wednesday of January"
As I said earlier, this is the first of a package of amendments that would be necessary to change the date on which the election is held. We have just amended the date of the issue of the writ so that it will be issued on the first Wednesday of February in the expiry year. This amendment proposes to make it the third Wednesday of January. That is the date on which the writs would be issued. That will allow us, when we move to clause 7 shortly, to change the date on which we have the fixed-term election. As I outlined in the second reading debate, the Labor Party is not moving this amendment because we have an intrinsic view about what the election date should be. If it were not for the technical realities of the issues that I am about to raise, we would have been quite happy to agree to the second Saturday in March, so as to try to get consensus around the chamber. We note that we have effectively picked the last possible date that can be chosen for a fixed-term election because of the difficulties of Easter. I put it to the chamber that even this date has the capacity to conflict with Easter. Even if the election date was made the week after, the date of the election would regularly conflict with Easter. I said as a throwaway line in the second debate that this date will conflict with the Easter weekend at some point in the very distant future. When we write this sort of legislation, we should write it to last forever.
The more practical and important point to consider now is what happens when either the Governor or a presiding officer of an individual polling station is required to defer an election because of a natural event. Traditionally under the Electoral Act there is a requirement that the election be deferred for a week under those circumstances. If that conflicts with the week preceding Easter, the election would need to be deferred until after Easter. If a cyclone or flooding occurred in the north west, or any other natural disaster occurred across the rest of the state in the days preceding the second Saturday in March in a year in which Easter occurred early, the state could potentially wait a month before it knew the result. I do not believe that is a good outcome. After the last election we did not know the final make-up of the seats for a couple of days. We thought we had a fairly good idea, although the seat of Kwinana, which at that stage was thought to have been lost by Labor, was eventually won by Labor. However, there was a general sense of the make-up of the Parliament and so negotiations were able to occur that led to this government being formed. However, if a ballot could not be held in one or two electorates, those negotiations could not occur. After the four-week election campaign, the state was in limbo for a couple of weeks when those negotiations were occurring. Because of the amendment we have just moved, there will be up to 40 days during which an outcome will not be known. Another important point about the date on which the writs are issued is the date on which the caretaker mode of government comes into place. The state could be in limbo for between 32 and 39 days and, potentially, the state could be in limbo for another four weeks. The state could have a caretaker government for two months. Some might say that that is okay because it will occur only during exceptional circumstances. I put it to the chamber that there is a simple solution to this matter, which is to move back to the third Saturday in February. That is the reason for moving this amendment. I note the comments members opposite made about the weather in March versus February. However, I suspect that if an election were held in March, we would be campaigning throughout the majority of February anyway. Anyone who thinks that under this new system they will not be doorknocking and campaigning from the middle of January through to the second Saturday of March is kidding themselves. That is the reality of modern politics. My view is that party supporters and even punters will have to deal with that. Although I note the weather issues and do not dismiss them, I suspect that the weather will be an issue no matter what date we pick in the summer months, certainly in the south west of Western Australia.
If an election is held in 20 years’ time and the result is delayed, people will ask who passed this legislation. I want to be able to say to them that I saw this as a problem and raised the matter in the chamber. It is now up to the chamber to make a decision. If the chamber does not want to do it, we will not oppose the bill because of it. However, if and when that occurs, it will give me an opportunity to say that I raised this matter in the chamber at the time and outlined very clearly that this was a potential problem with the date that had been chosen. If other members do not believe that is important, so be it, but I do. We will have our battles over some issues of electoral reform. Generally, I agree with the government that we should seek consensus when amending electoral legislation. I also believe that we should draft legislation that can stand the test of time. Although I accept that the date on which an election will conflict with Easter is a long way away and that we will all be dead and buried, we should be looking to pass legislation that will stand the test of time. The Police Act 1892 is still in force. Although it has been amended over the years, it is great that that legislation continues to operate. That is what we should aim to be doing with matters relating to electoral affairs. We need to look at all those issues and is why Labor is moving this amendment. If my analysis is wrong, I welcome government members correcting me and making it to clear to the chamber how they believe those scenarios will play out. I am confident that the scenario I have suggested is likely to occur at some point and that we should make provision for it.
The CHAIRMAN: I want to give the call to the minister in a minute or two, but I am mindful of standing order
237(b), which states —
In the same Committee, no new clause or other amendment shall be proposed that is substantially the same as one already negatived or that is inconsistent with a previous decision of the same Committee.
I am mindful of the decision made by the amendment to delete on page 4, line 12 “second” and insert “first”. Hon Ken Travers’ amendment proposes to delete the “second” Wednesday of February and insert the “third” Wednesday of the January. With that in mind, I give the call to the minister.
---------------
Hon ALISON XAMON: For many of the reasons already articulated—namely the date being too close to the Christmas holidays and the issue of heat—the Greens (WA) will not support this or the subsequent amendments proposed by the Australian Labor Party. However, I am pleased Hon Ken Travers has thoroughly looked through the legislation and I am pleased we have a subsequent government undertaking to tidy up some of the issues identified as a result. I hope that the matter is resolved prior to the next election.
The fundamental reason that the Greens (WA) will not be supporting this amendment is because it takes us in the wrong direction in terms of our desire to have the dates as close as possible at which Legislative Council members and Legislative Assembly members take their seats. In that regard, if we were to consider some of the scenarios posed by Hon Ken Travers and we were looking at an election occurring in April, we do not see that as much of a problem, because in actual fact that would bring us closer to our preferred position of having the dates as close as possible. For that reason the Greens will not be supporting any of the amendments pertaining to the changing of the date, and obviously the consequent amendments. We are satisfied with the date that was arrived at through the discussions. We were very clear that our preferred position was to have a set date rather than a range of dates, and so what was arrived at through discussions is closer to what we wanted. I think some really good arguments have been put forward as to why it would have been nice to have gone for a November date, but as long as we have fixed terms for the Council occurring from May, unless we were looking at changing both of them, that was not the Greens’ preference. That is pretty much all the Greens want to say on this discussion, and we will not be supporting any of those amendments.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to place on the record a reply to the issues that Hon Alison Xamon raised. When we were originally consulted by the government on this matter, Labor suggested the option of either a November date or the third Saturday in February, and we also suggested bringing closer together, as Hon Alison Xamon has raised, the election date, the date on which the writs are returned, and the changeover of the upper house. I want to make it clear that the reason I have not moved amendments along those lines is because I knew that would be poking the bear a bit too hard! I know the government’s position on those matters is that it likes the changeover date, and I guess the point of not going down that path—even though I have some empathy with the argument— was that it was about trying to get agreement. I knew there were technical issues in terms of the date—the third Saturday of February versus the second Saturday in March—and I also understood that the government’s position was very clear about not being keen to change the date of 21 March, and I did not want to try to aggravate and start a whole new argument around that issue that would distract from the key issue, which is the difficulties presented by the second Saturday in March. While I understand Hon Alison Xamon’s point, I still think it is important that we debate the technicalities.
Hon Alison Xamon: Absolutely.
--------------------
The CHAIRMAN: We will still, though, move on to the next amendment standing in the name of the minister.
Committee Resumed
Amendment ruled out of order.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —
Page 4, line 16 — To delete “second” and insert —
"first"
This relates to the matter I talked about in respect to amendment 1/5, and for the same reasons I ask the house to support it.
Amendment put and passed.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I have a further question I was hoping to have clarified in relation to proposed section 64(1). I understand that the sorts of events that could generate a Legislative Assembly–only election will only, generally, be a situation whereby a government lost a no-confidence motion or when a supply bill was blocked by the Legislative Assembly. Are there any other circumstances in which the government could, effectively, be forced into having separate Assembly and Council elections?
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I do not know whether I am losing my hearing or whether there is some problem with the sound system.
Hon Alison Xamon: It’s echoing; it’s awful.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: But I have great difficulty in understanding what the member is saying. That is no disrespect to the member, because if we took away the microphone I could probably understand things perfectly.
Hon Alison Xamon: I think so.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I was trying to think about what I thought the member was saying and relating it to clause 5, and I have now worked that out, but I really would be most grateful if the member could repeat the comments she made. I ask if the house could just have a look at—I do not know whether it is the member’s microphone particularly or whether it is her voice and the microphone together—what is causing the problem, but I have to say that it is very difficult to hear what the member is saying for reasons about which I have no idea.
The CHAIRMAN: The audio control room has been informed of the problem. I acknowledge the problem; it certainly is an issue in the chair as well. If the member could perhaps be a little more deliberate or slower—I do not know what the correct request is—but certainly if you could reiterate what you said before, it may well be useful to the house.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I might just say that before, when Hon Ken Travers was speaking and his microphone was on, I was finding it really difficult to hear him, and this is coming from a man who really does not need a microphone at all, so I think the microphones are making it quite difficult.
The CHAIRMAN: Member, can I just make a suggestion? Perhaps if you could turn the microphone directly towards you, rather than having it on that angle or doing what you have just done, which is putting it almost on the floor.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Unfortunately, with my height I am also almost on the floor! I am doing the best I can.
Hon Michael Mischin: I do not want to cause trouble, but by moving the microphone like that the member will not be recorded.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I will try again. I refer to clause 5, proposed section 64(1).
Committee interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders.
[Continued on page 3184.]