Motion – Joint Select Committee to inquire into the 2021 state and Legislative Council elections

Opening address to Parliament: Joint Select Committee – 2021 State Election and Legislative Council Elections  (speech text below)

 

Address in Reply: Joint Select Committee – 2021 State Election and Legislative Council Elections  (speech text below).

 

I (Ms Webb) give Notice that tomorrow I shall move  – 

That a Joint Select Committee be appointed with power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of either House and with leave to adjourn from place to place to inquire into and report upon —

• All aspects of the conduct of the 2021 state election and 2021 Legislative Council elections and matters related thereto
• That the number of Members to serve on the said Committee on the part of the Legislative Council be four.

 

Madam Deputy President, elections are a fundamental right for the citizens of Tasmania.  Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern develop in this state of Tasmanian voters losing health in the health and integrity of our elections and it is time to put an end to that pattern before it becomes entrenched and the integrity of our democracy becomes eroded.  It is vital public confidence in the conduct of elections is actively maintained.  Citizens deserve to have full confidence in the administration of elections and have an avenue to raise and have examined any questions or concerns.

This is in the public interest and such an inquiry proposed in this motion is within the purview of both houses of parliament.  Our parliament can and must play a key role in maintaining that public confidence.

Let me state at the outset, this move to establish a joint House committee inquiry is focused upon the conduct of the elections and matters arising and it is in no way intended to dispute the vote count or result.  I have already placed upon the public record I accept the general election outcome for the House of Assembly and the outcome for the contest of the Legislative Council seats for Derwent and Windermere.  To be perfectly frank, it would be disingenuous for the Government to claim surprise at the fact there are now calls for a forum in which to raise and hopefully resolve the myriad of contentious issues swirling around and throughout the circumstances of the 2021 State and Legislative Council elections.

To commence this debate, I thought it would be fitting first to go back to the beginning for all of us as members of the parliament, especially as the opening of this Fiftieth Tasmanian Parliament has seen new members both in this and the other place, take their respective oath of allegiance or affirmation.  Even for those of us previously sworn in, bearing witness to those solemn pledges, is always a significant reminder and opportunity to refocus on the privilege and responsibility each and every one of us holds on behalf of those who placed us here.

Further, it is pertinent to this debate to consider the Code of Conduct for MP’s that was drafted and recommended by the Integrity Commission and which was adopted by both Houses in late 2018.  The adopted Code of Conduct preamble states, and I quote:

Members of Parliament recognise that their actions have an impact on the lives of all Tasmanian people.  Fulfilling their obligations and discharging their duties responsibly requires a commitment to the highest ethical standards to maintain and strengthen the democratic traditions of the State and the integrity of its institutions.

Compliance with the law may not always be enough to guarantee an acceptable standard of conduct.  Members must not only act lawfully, but also in a manner that will withstand close public scrutiny.  This code sets out ethical standards and principles to assist members in observing expected standards of conduct in public office and to act as a benchmark against which their conduct can be measured.  The code goes on further and I will not read all, but will make mention of the statement of values which fits with it.  Again, I quote from that statement of values –

This code is derived from the fundamental values of the institution of the Parliament in this State.  By adopting and upholding the Code, all Members of Parliament share and support these values.

As Members of Parliament, we value-

 

• the public interest and the fundamental objective of public office to act solely in terms of the public interest.
• the improvement of the economic and social conditions of all Tasmanian people, and our service to our fellow citizens to achieve this.
• the promotion of human, social and environmental welfare through the responsible execution of our official duties;
• integrity, honesty, accessibility, accountability, fairness, transparency, courtesy, respect and understanding without harassment, victimisation or discrimination;
• respect for differences, equity and fairness in political dealings, with fellow Members of Parliament and;
• ethical political practices that support the democratic traditions of our State and its institutions, and the rejection of political corruption.

 

This code then, but for the purposes of this debate, and these statements of values are particularly important and useful to help us focus as we consider the motion before us because it goes to the heart of what this motion is actually asking us to do as members of parliament.  Fundamentally, this motion asks us, as elected representatives, to walk the talk of our code of conduct that we have all pledged to uphold in this place.  It is asking us to put aside any personal discomfort we may feel about the outcome and findings of any such review and any implications such findings may hold for our respective political allegiances.  It asks us, instead, to place first and foremost our collective commitment to demonstrate, as per our code of conduct, the highest ethical standards to maintain and strengthen the democratic traditions of the state and the integrity of its institutions. 

This motion is asking us to provide the Tasmanian community with an appropriate and accountable forum where they can raise their experiences and legitimate concerns pertaining to the May elections.  All of us here are well aware that a range of concerns and questions were raised in the lead-up and in the period following the 2021 state election and Legislative Council elections.  These arose from across the Tasmanian community, from political experts and commentators, from former and current elected representatives, and from concerned voters. 

Other members here may well have received emails and other communications, as I did, from constituents and from Tasmanian community members around the state raising concerns and asking questions. 

Indicative of those questions and concerns were the following:  the legitimacy of the rationale provided for calling an early election for the House of Assembly; potential voter disenfranchisement in the Windermere and Derwent elections with the apparent failure to provide Legislative Council ballot papers at voting booths beyond the borders of Windermere and Derwent; issues with the pre-selection and subsequent resignation of Adam Brooks in the electorate of Braddon; the impact of concurrent House of Assembly and Legislative Council elections for the first time in the history of this state, including clarity on how the financial benefit accrued from the lower House election campaigning activities will be assessed against the legislated restrictions applied to the Legislative Council elections. 

When such a range of persistent and real concerns are raised it is our duty to listen.  When we hear such concerns voiced, it goes to the heart of the integrity of Tasmania’s democracy and governance.  It would be disrespectful and a grave disservice for us – those tasked with representing the community – to allow these questions and concerns to be dismissed, indeed, swept under the carpet.  Whether we agree with all, some, or none of these matters raised is immaterial. 

The crucial matter is that, having resoundingly been put forward and heard, they need to be resolved.  To be resolved they need to be aired, identified for further examination and inquiry within an appropriate and robust forum.  To fail to do this invites a further erosion of public confidence in the institutions of our democracy and in this place.  I will not be prosecuting arguments here today on the validity or otherwise of the concerns that I have mentioned as examples of those arising in relation to the 2021 elections. 

This debate on this motion is not the place for such an exercise.  Rather, this debate is on the validity of providing a formal, appropriate and accountable process for those arguments to be prosecuted by any Tasmanian citizen who wishes to advance them.  However, I will speak briefly in this context about the issue of the concurrence of the general and Legislative Council elections.  This is of particular relevance to this chamber and I wish to note merely some matters on the public record. 

The Premier, Mr Gutwein, has the distinction of being the first premier in Tasmania’s history to set a state general election on the same day as a scheduled Legislative Council election.  This decision to hold concurrent elections for the first time in our state’s history is, in and of itself, a compelling reason to establish the joint select committee proposed in this motion to undertake an election inquiry and review to ascertain the ramifications and impact of this historic first including, if it is ultimately deemed, that there were none of consequence. 

It is important to understand and to learn from what transpired as a result of holding concurrent elections of both Houses of parliament for the first time in our state.  It is our job, the job of both Houses of parliament, to do this.  The possibility and perhaps the risk that there would be ramifications and impacts on concurrent elections was immediately identified by all independent members of this Chamber and many members of the Tasmanian community.

Further, it was identified by many holding these concerns that there were other options available to obviate the potential risks, namely, the Legislative Council elections can be held on any Saturday in May without changing the legislation.

Together with five Independent colleagues in this place, I wrote to the Premier expressing our concerns that concurrent elections provided an advantage to party-aligned candidates in Legislative Council seats being contested.  Our letter requested that the Premier advise the Governor to shift the upper House election by two weeks to a weekend later in May, which would comply with both the Constitution Act and the Electoral Act.  I will read the letter that we wrote to the Premier on this matter into the parliamentary record:

Dear Premier

Re:  Legislative Council Election Date

As independent members of the Legislative Council we write to express our significant concern at your decision to set the House of Assembly election on the same date as the scheduled 2021 Legislative Council elections.  Your decision to align Legislative Council and House of Assembly election dates were the first time in the history of the Tasmanian Parliament risks undermining the important and separate role of the Legislative Council in holding the government of the day to account.  It is key to a healthy democracy.

Even had there been an imperative to set the date of 1 May for this House of Assembly election, a further option would have been to delay the 2021 Legislative Council elections to a later date in May for which there is provision in both the Constitution Act 1934 and the Electoral Act 2004.  This option remains available.

Therefore, with regard to the 2021 Legislative Council elections our preference would be that the date for this election be immediately rescheduled for a later date in May to avoid the conflict of dates. 

Regardless, we seek a firm commitment from you that should the Liberal Party be returned to government in this state election you progress and/or support legislative reform to ensure that in future such an alignment of election dates is not permitted, as is the case with a conflict with a date of a federal government election.

The alignment of elections provides an undoubted advantage to party affiliated candidates over independent candidates running in the Legislative Council elections.

This is clearly in opposition to the Legislative Council electoral system, which as designed provides an even playing field to all candidates through measures such as a separate election cycle, election spending caps and the disallowance of electoral spending for political parties or third parties.

Party-aligned Legislative Council candidates will significantly benefit from activities related to the concurrent House of Assembly elections, including whole of party election advertising, high visibility of party branding for House of Assembly election candidates, access to stakeholder functions, group media opportunities and public events organised and possibly funded by House of Assembly candidates, parties or third parties.

It is unclear how financial benefit from these kinds of activities will be assessed against the legislated restrictions applied to Legislative Council elections.  Legislative Council elections occur on a separate and distinct electoral cycle.  This provides the opportunity for Tasmanian voters to more fully appreciate and respect the differing roles of both Houses of Parliament.

House of Assembly elections are contested on a policy basis to form the government of the day.  Legislative Council elections are contested to select members for the House of Review whose primary function is to hold the government of the day to account.

In a shared effort to ensure a strong, healthy Tasmanian democracy and appropriately functioning parliament for the Tasmanian people we ask that you give this matter full and fair consideration and provide a prompt response to the undersigned.

It is signed by Ivan Dean, Tania Rattray, Ruth Forrest, Rosemary Armitage, Rob Valentine and Meg Webb.  That letter was sent on 31 March 2021.  I seek leave to table that letter.

Leave granted.

 

 Ms WEBB – The Premier declined the request to delay the Legislative Council elections to a weekend later in May. His response, received on 1 April 2021, stated:

Dear Members

Thank you for your letter of 31 March 2021 raising concerns regarding the timing of the general election for the House of Assembly which has been called for the 1 May 2021.

The question of whether there is any legal impediment to calling the general election on the same day as the Legislative Council election was considered before the election was called.

The power to call an election is an executive power, exercised in accordance with the Electoral Act and I am advised there is no legal or constitutional matter that would prevent both elections from taking place on the same day.

Additionally, the Executive Government is held to account by the Opposition in Parliament and is ultimately accountable to the Tasmanian community at an election.  Accordingly, I do not agree with your position that it is the Legislative Council that exercises the primary function of holding the government of the day to account.

Even if such an argument is made, I do not agree that holding both elections on Saturday, 1 May in any way blurs the lines of the independent functions of the two Houses.

For these reasons, I will not be seeking for the date of either the general election of the House of Assembly nor the Legislative Council elections to be changed.

Your sincerely

Peter Gutwein MP Premier

Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to table that response.

Leave granted.

 Ms WEBB – I will not presume to speak for any of my colleagues; but it would be a significant understatement to say that I find this response from the Premier disappointing.  In fact, I find it disrespectful and ill informed.

As much as any Premier or government of the day may wish it, political convenience and bold-faced assertions do not define or shape the fundamental roles and principles of our Parliament – the institution which sits at the centre of our democracy.

The Legislative Council is a House of review.  It is a House of legislation, and it has the key role in holding the government of the day to account.  This role of the Tasmanian Legislative Council is outlined on page 3 of the Legislative Council Annual Report 2019-2020 and is described as follows:

The Legislative Council, as the upper House of the Parliament of Tasmania, can be described as democratic with an independent character.  The role of the Council is threefold:

• To authorise the raising of revenue and the expenditure of state monies;
• To examine the merits of legislation; and
• To provide a Parliamentary check on the government of the day.

In modern times, the role of the Legislative Council has expanded from the base of being a purely legislative body to a House that involves itself in the examination and analysis of actions, decisions and workings of Executive Government.

When I consider the Premier’s reply, I also hark back to the code of conduct and in particular these points from it:

Fulfilling their obligations and discharging their duties responsibly requires a commitment to the highest ethical standards to maintain and strengthen the democratic traditions of the state and the integrity of its institutions.

Compliance with the law may not always be enough to guarantee an acceptable standard of conduct.  Members must not only act lawfully but also in a manner that will withstand close public scrutiny.

Our statement of values is something that also comes to mind where it says: ‘As members, we value respect for differences, equity and fairness in political dealings with fellow members of Parliament, and ethical political practices that support the democratic traditions of our state and its institutions and the rejection of political corruption’.

To reiterate: for the health of our democracy, the matters relating to concurrent elections and those other concerns and questions that have arisen, also remain unaddressed despite the Premier’s assertions otherwise.  They need to be resolved.  They need to be aired, identified for further examination and inquiry within an appropriate and robust forum.  This begs the question where and how might this occur, and whose jurisdiction applies.  

Initially, the Integrity Commission was thought by some to be an appropriate forum for examining some matters raised in relation to the elections.  However, we now know that the Tasmanian Integrity Commission has ruled itself out as a viable option, in light of a particular election-related referral that was submitted to it.  Its advice -as recently reported in the media  – apparently was that this referral was outside of the commission’s jurisdiction: ‘because misconduct allegations against Mr Gutwein fell within the election period’. 

The commission’s chief executive officer was then quoted by the ABC on 11 June this year as saying: 

The impact of the Parliament’s dissolution is that sitting members no longer hold their seats in Parliament.  They cease to be MPs and are no longer public officers.  We acknowledge that government ministers retain their ministerial role during the election period and remain subject to the ministerial code of conduct.  However, given we only have jurisdiction over ministers due to their status as MPs, I can confirm that we do not have jurisdiction over ministers, including the Premier, during the election period. 

I am sure this was an interesting and disturbing revelation to many Tasmanians. It appears we have ministers who are not members of parliament, contrary to the fundamental principles of a Westminster parliament.  It also appears that the Integrity Commission still lacked jurisdiction, even within that select group to which the Premier – as minister of the Crown – belongs. 

If the Integrity Commission’s advice is the case – and at this stage we have no reason nor means to counter it – those non-MP ministers and their free-wheeling caretaker government arrangements are in an incredibly powerful position for that period of time, without a pesky parliament to hold them to account. In addition, they also seem to be beyond the jurisdiction of the state’s integrity watchdog during election periods, on the basis that parliament is dissolved. 

King Charles I would cheer this arrangement.  This situation of ministers who are not accountable to parliament, even for a relatively brief period of time, highlights the importance of caretaker conventions.  And yet, that is one area where serious concerns have been raised with me and perhaps to others here, in light of the May elections. 

The bizarre situation about when is a minister not an MP and subsequent implications for independent oversight, parliamentary accountability and caretaker conventions, is another matter that would be sufficient to warrant the proposed parliamentary election inquiry that this motion puts forward. 

With the Integrity Commission having ruled itself out of contention, we move on.  Some may have wondered at the suitability of the Office of the Ombudsman to undertake some form of review of aspects of the 2021 election.  However, although the Tasmanian Ombudsman is recognised as an integrity entity, it is perceived and accepted by most that the scope of this proposed election review is also beyond their remit.

It may be the role of the Tasmanian Electoral Commission.  The Electoral Commission is a statutory independent and impartial body.  It is responsible for the conduct of the elections of both houses of this parliament, as well as local council elections, other statutory elections, and the implementation of electoral boundary redistributions.  It is quite standard for the TEC to be a participant in inquiries by making formal representations to relevant parliamentary reviews. 

For example, the TEC made a submission to the previous Liberal Government 2018 review into the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004, both in 2018 and again, in response to that review’s interim report, in 2019.  It is not the role of the TEC to undertake an inquiry into the full range of matters that have arisen as questions and concerns relating to the 2021 elections. 

For example, it would not be within the TECs role to fully examine the political decisions surrounding the circumstances of the election, such as the choice to hold concurrent elections.  Further, when it comes to other matters, such as concerns about other lack of access to Upper House election ballot papers, then we would be put a risk of placing the TEC in the untenable position of investigating itself.

Although all of the entities, particularly the TEC would provide very useful information and insight into any inquiry, it is beyond their jurisdiction to conduct the proposed election review inquiry themselves.  There does not exist an appropriate non-parliamentary mechanism or forum by which to undertake the necessary rigorous and public examination of legitimate matters pertaining to the May 2021 elections.  Therefore, the responsibility comes back to this parliament.  I had a quick look to see whether other parliaments have established appropriate mechanisms by which to fulfil this very responsibility and let me share what I found.

The federal Parliament has a joint standing committee on electoral matters.  The role is primarily to conduct:

inquiries into such matters relating to electoral laws and practices, and their administration as may be referred to it by either house of parliament or a minister. 

This includes a standing review of each federal election during years federal elections are held.  When each federal election is reviewed by this joint standing committee for that inquiry, the committee consist of 10 members comprised from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  It includes government and opposition, minority party and independent members.

This federal standing committee has reported on a range of interesting matters pertaining to the conduct of our national elections and broader related matters, included one that concluded just last month on the future conduct of election operations during times of emergency situations.  In May 2020, this committee reported on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019.  A topic we would find interesting in this jurisdiction.  Significantly, the committee’s most recent election review is Report on the conduct on the 2019 federal elections and matters related there too, tabled in December 2020 provides specific matters pertaining to this debate we have today.

That reports forward written by the committee chair Liberal Senator Honourable James McGrath, states:

Australia is lucky, we are blessed that we live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world.  Our good fortune has come not through chance … our democracy works because over a century, a lot of people, paid and unpaid, have worked to make it so through blood, sweat and tears.  Our democracy works because countless Australians have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms inherit in democracy.  As society has changed, so should our electoral system be fine-tuned.  Now is the time for immediate action by Parliament to certain changes and for a longer conversation about other reforms.

This most recent federal election report, members here may be very proud, and in fact, should be very proud to learn that this most recent report recommended to increase fairness and to reduce the luck of the ballot draw while minimising the so-called donkey-vote, a Robson rotation of candidates in the ballot paper should be introduced for the House of Representatives in tandem. 

There you go, Madam Deputy President, a Tasmanian initiative we have utilised for decades, it is now being advocated via that regular and routine election review process for introduction into the federal electoral system for the express purpose of increasing fairness.  That must be the fine tuning referred by the chair of that committee in his opening.

The review report of the 2019 federal election contains 27 recommendations, which I will not detail now, but suffice to say they span a range of related election matters, which some of us here may or not agree with, including reforms to the electoral act, operations of the AEC, tackling issues with donor transparency and implications of electoral road maintenance of local government, to mention a few of the areas covered.  They are all based on reviewing what did or did not work with the operations of the 2019 federal election, matters arising from new specific considerations generated by that election, as well as long‑standing and more long‑term proposed areas for change.

I note that the Tasmanian federal members who participated in the 2019 federal election standard routine review were Senator Carol Brown as Committee Deputy Chair, Senator Eric Abetz, Senator Catryna Bilyk, Senator Helen Polley and Senator Anne Urquhart.

After going back through this standing committee’s report on the last eight Federal elections which take us back to 1998 when John Howard was elected Prime Minister, I stopped counting.  However, in the period spanning those eight elections, both federal Labor and Coalition winners of government were involved.  Neither attempted to hinder this Standing Committee from fulfilling its election review role.   Indeed, they have actively participated in the process.  That is a very interesting precedent for us to consider in relation to the motion we have before us.  Surely, if federal Labor and Liberal representatives can participate in such an election review process nationally, it cannot be an imposition to do so here in Tasmania. 

At the state level, there are also examples of similar standing parliamentary committees dedicated to electoral matters.  The New South Wales Parliament has its dedicated Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.  That committee’s remit is as follows:

The Committee inquire into and report upon such matters as may be referred to it by either House of Parliament or a minister that relate to:

…

2A     the following electoral laws:

• Electoral Act 2017 other than Part 3;
• Electoral Funding Act 2018; and
• Those provisions of the Constitution Act 1902 that relate to the procedures for, and conduct of, elections for members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council other than sections 27, 28 and 28(a).

2B     the administration of and practices associated with the electoral laws described at A.

3        All matters that relate to 2A and B above in respect to the 23 March 2019 State elections shall stand referred to the Committee for any inquiry the Committee may wish to make.  The Committee shall report on the outcome of any such inquiry within 18 months of the date of this resolution being agreed by both Houses.

Again, similar to the federal standing committee, New South Wales has a dedicated parliamentary committee for examination of all electoral law related matters plus a review of their State elections as a matter of routine.  Its current 10 members consist of four Liberal MP’s, three ALP MP’s, two National MP’s and one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP.  The latest report of this New South Wales committee was The Administration of the 2019 New South Wales State Election Report tabled in October last year.  Its recommendations ranged from electoral expenditure and caps, funding the New South Wales Electoral Commission, early voting options, nomination processes, accessible voting, compliance and enforcement resourcing, amongst other matters, some general as well as some specifically raised in the context of that State’s 2019 State election.  In his foreword to this report, Committee Chair, Liberal MP, Mr Lee Evans, states, and I quote:

Administering the free and fair elections that the people of New South Wales rightly expect in a democracy such as ours is a major undertaking and I would like to commend the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner, Mr John Schmidt and his staff for their professionalism in delivering the election in March 2019.

Mr Evans further continues:

The inquiry has been a valuable opportunity for the Committee to hear from a range of stakeholders about the conduct of the 2019 New South Wales state election and to reflect on what worked well and where improvements could be made for future elections.  The Committee’s recommendations are wide‑ranging, covering election time frames and the campaign period, the electoral roll and the ballot paper, early voting, election day and compliance with an enforcement of the electoral legislation.

Madam Deputy President, those sentiments fit exactly within the text and intent of the motion in my name currently before this House.  It is also worth noting that clearly the New South Wales Parliament does not consider the existence of a New South Wales Electoral Commission somehow negates its own oversight responsibility.  Instead, they serve different functions and work in a complimentary manner to benefit the people of New South Wales. 

Lastly, I will move onto our neighbours in Victoria whose Standing Electoral Matters Committee is a joint investigatory committee of that parliament.  Its remit is:

The committee’s functions are to inquire into, consider and report to the parliament on any proposals, matter or thing concerned with –

• Conduct of parliamentary elections and referendums in Victoria;
• The conduct of elections of councilors under the Local Government Act 2020;
• The administration of or practices associated with the Electoral Act 2002 and any other law relating to electoral matters.

The committee’s functions are not intended to repeal, alter or vary section 94(F) or 94(G) of the Constitution Act 1975.

The current membership of this Victorian standing committee is 10 MPs, with four Labor, three Liberal, one Animal Justice Party, one Victorian Greens and one Liberal Democrat.  This Victorian Joint Standing Committee has held inquiries into issues as diverse as voter participation and informal voting, political donations, electronic voting, civics and electoral participation in Victorian state parliamentary elections, social media impacts on elections, as well as the routine review of the 2006, 2010, 2014 and the most recent 2018 state elections.  The foreword from Chair, Labor MP, Lee Tarlamis opens with this statement:

The Electoral Matters Committee plays an important role in keeping our democracy strong.  This includes conducting inquiries like this one after each state election.  These inquiries provide an opportunity for any member of the community, any candidate and any other stakeholder to share their experiences and to suggest improvements to the system.  The inquiries provide an opportunity for scrutiny at the Victorian Electoral Commission and for regularly reviewing the appropriateness of the electoral law.

I believe these sentiments could, and should, preface an equivalent Tasmanian parliamentary report detailing the findings of a similar opportunity provided to any member of the Tasmanian community, following each of our state elections.

It is clear other jurisdictions consider it appropriate and necessary to place the responsibility on elected members of parliament to undertake this public and transparent mode of election review.  These routine election reviews may or may not identify specific issues or problems with any particular poll, but they also canvass, consult and make constructive recommendations intended to improve their respective democratic institutions. 

The federal committee’s recommendations to adopt the Robson Rotation is an example.  Such positive work should also be undertaken by this motion’s proposed committee.  It may have cause to look into the matter raised by the member for McIntyre during her Address‑in‑Reply speech last week: ‘maybe it is time Tasmania explores the option of fixed-term elections’.  Any of these matters may be considered under this sort of inquiry.

In those parliaments that I have discussed, MPs of all political persuasions and affiliations participate in their respective parliamentary electoral review inquiries as a matter of course – and apparently without feeling threatened in any manner.  These routine parliamentary reviews are accepted as exactly that – routine maintenance and investment in their important and vital aspect of our democracy which is our free and fair elections. 

It is also worth noting, in relation to some suggestions that the TEC is already the entity undertaking our election processes health check – all these jurisdictions which have parliamentary standing committees review their elections also have their equivalent to the TEC.  Federally, the AEC undertakes a similar role, as does the New South Wales Electoral Commission and the Victorian Electoral Commission.  In those jurisdictions it is not perceived as a case of either/or, instead there is a clear recognition of the different roles and functions required and provided by both.

As clearly articulated in the Victorian committee report I referred to, these inquiries provide an avenue for those electoral commissions to also be scrutinised as well as provide their own feedback.

This brings me to touch briefly on an accusation that I found levelled against me for proposing this committee of inquiry and that is that the call was somehow motivated by sour grapes.  Unsurprisingly, we have already heard that calls for a rigorous public and transparent review of the unprecedented conjunct May elections is somehow just a bad case of sour grapes or actually in one media report it was described it was the pursuit of personal bug bears.

Not only is that attempt to diminish and dismiss this serious proposal sadly predictable, it is also very telling of those seeking to mischaracterise the intent and the motivation behind this proposal.  I want to flip that spurious assertion that this is somehow sour grapes to call for Tasmanians to have the same democracy oversight mechanisms as they are afforded at the federal level and just as their fellow citizens receive in New South Wales and Victoria.  In actual fact, it is very much sour grapes for the victors of any election to deny such oversight.  Indeed, it could be regarded as well beyond sour grapes and perhaps veering into an inappropriate or at best ungracious misuse of power. 

It should be unremarkable for electoral winners to have the courage of their convictions to stand up and say, I am prepared to participate with good faith in the health check of this system to check it is still delivering best practice on behalf of voters, as well as potential future candidates.  If there are areas that can be strengthened and improved then I want to be part of that.

That is all this motion is requesting, that in the absence of any viable and appropriate alternative we in good faith allow and participate in a public, transparent health check of the system that placed all of us here.  Each and every one of us in this Chamber are successful candidates, privileged to be elected on behalf of our respective electorates and act in the interests of those electorates.  As successful contesters of our own parliamentary elections we need to now face up, and front up, to our responsibilities as parliamentarians to graciously and courageously put first and act in the interests of the parliamentary democracy of which we are but temporary custodians on behalf of all Tasmanians.

To suggest that we do so could not be further removed from spurious sour grapes motivations.  It should be beneath anyone privileged to be an elected representative here to allow it to be mischaracterised as such. 

This motion does not present a radical or subversive idea.  As we can see in the routine and established practices of some of our interstate counterparts, proud conservatives, including governments led by prime minister John Howard through to current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, have all voted during each commencement stage of their respective parliaments to reconvene their standing committees with the responsibility of reviewing the election just held, which delivered their victory, just as newly-elected Labor, federal and interstate governments have done at a state level.  Then they have participated, along with their political opponents, in those election reviews.

To conclude, if not here, where?  If not us, who?  The recent ABC 2021 Australia Talks survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement:  ‘Politicians in Australia can generally be trusted to act in the interests of the people they represent.’

I was deeply dismayed to see that amongst our fellow Tasmanians 76 per cent disagreed with that statement.  Three in four Tasmanians disagree that we here, each of us, can be trusted to act in the interests of those we represent.  Even more heartbreaking than this figure is that this figure has worsened substantially from only two years ago in 2019 when it stood at 64 per cent.  This distressing public perception is entirely on us.  It is our, and only our, responsibility to turn this around and clearly ‘business as usual’ is driving it in the wrong direction.

In the one week since the opening of this Fiftieth Tasmanian Parliament, one week ago today, it is interesting to note that the Government in this week has issued at least four separate media statements regarding sport and the AFL.

I am in no way disparaging football.  I recognise the significant role it plays and the joy it brings to many in the community.  However, the point I make is this, can you imagine if our Government went into bat for the health and integrity of our democracy as it goes into bat for a Tasmanian football team?  Imagine if the Government was as ferocious in its defence of Tasmania’s right to a modern, robust and rigorously transparent and accountable parliamentary democracy as it is in defending the state’s right to its own football team.

Imagine if our Premier threw down challenges to other states to try to best us, not in goal kicks but in levels of public confidence.  Just imagine that.

I doubt we would need to be holding this debate today on this motion if that scenario was real instead of imaginary but I believe it is possible for us to achieve it.

I believe in us, here in this place and it is with that hope of the possible that I bring this proposal to the parliament for consideration, hope that all of us here who with great solemnity pledge to uphold those principles outlined in our code of conduct will see this not as a challenge but as an opportunity to act upon the pledges of responsibility to the Tasmanian people beyond any other affiliation.

This motion asks us to put partisan tribalism aside and instead don the one set of colours that is Tasmania’s democracy, to put first what is best for the Tasmanian people over what may be best for ourselves or our political party.

It is with that hope that we can come together to collaborate for this greater good.

I commend this motion to the House.

Read Meg’s JSC Media Release here

In Reply

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Deputy President, in the first instance, thanks to those members who have spoken on the motion.  I very much appreciate their contributions.  I note the support expressed by the independent members of the Chamber and from the ALP member who spoke to the motion and I am very pleased to see that support.

It is interesting that the member for Rumney and also the member for McIntyre spoke of their surprise about the revelations that the Integrity Commission does not have jurisdiction over MPs in general elections during the electoral period because technically they are not MPs. 

Actually, I would point out that it is an even more interesting circumstance because, thinking that through while you were discussing that here in your contributions, there is actually a difference between the two Houses.  When a general election is called for the lower House, parliament is prorogued and so that indicates the end of those members’ times as members of parliament and they become candidates.  At that point in time, we are led to believe by the Integrity Commission that the Integrity Commission has no jurisdiction over them during that election period. 

We are different from that here.  Parliament is still in existence across the time that we campaign for our elections and, as the member for McIntyre rightly pointed out, we actually stay members right up until election day so we are not in a similar situation of participating as a candidate for election while also not being a member of parliament and, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commission. 

Here is an interesting thing in itself too, is it not?  As members in the two Houses, there is quite a distinct difference over our accountability related to our integrity across the time that we campaign.  When we are running for re-election as members here, we will never have the luxury of being absent from the responsibilities that we are going to be held to account for through the Integrity Commission and its processes.  We will always have that sitting over and above us and being accountable to it while we campaign for election. 

Apparently, we are given to believe and understand that is not the case for our colleagues in the lower House.  That is quite extraordinary.  It may be that I have misconstrued that too.  It may be that there is actually a different reality to this that needs even further examination and explanation.  As the member for McIntyre rightly pointed out, this is precisely the sort of matter that could be unpicked within the context of this proposed joint select committee of inquiry into the election. 

Again, in and of itself that should be enough justification to hold it.  Why would we not unpick this in the most open and accountable way through a parliamentary inquiry process?  The member for Rumney also raised the unresolved electoral reforms and I agree that, in the absence of those being progressed, some things may come up in this process.  Were it to go ahead, it could be valuable to feed through to the ongoing progress of those reforms. 

The member for Launceston, thank you for your contribution.  You mentioned and contributed some of those comments from Richard Herr as an expert on these matters and his entreaty to parliament and to the Premier to engage with this process.  That is valuable input from an outside expert on the potential value of this.  I thank you for your support of the motion.

The member for McIntyre, thank you for your contribution.  I agree it is not necessarily an easy decision to come to.  It is not something that has occurred before so it does actually ask us to give it due consideration.  I agree with you the most appropriate way to approach this and why I have proposed it this way is that both Houses of Parliament would do this in a joint fashion through a joint select committee.

We have seen other states who have progressed these sorts of processes take that approach as the most appropriate.  I will not say much more on that other than to thank you for your contribution.

I am reluctant to speak in too much detail in response to the Government’s contribution.  I pre-empted most of the things they would say in the contribution I made at the beginning of this debate and my views on those positions are contained in my first speech.  I will say a couple of short things.

One I did speak about earlier, but will reinforce now briefly.  The Electoral Commission exists and has a particular statutory role.  Absolutely nothing in this proposal takes away from, pre-empts, overtakes or replicates that role.  Just like, as I said, in every other state where the parliament engages in a review of elections, they also have their own electoral commissions and it is not an either/or matter.  It is something that can sit quite happily in terms of public confidence and the public being reassured that appropriate processes are there.  You can have an electoral commission undertaking its activities and providing a report on those activities, perhaps reviewing them internally and that is fine.  They are answerable to the parliament.  One key way that we have statutory bodies to answer to the parliament is through things like inquiries and committees.  It is entirely reasonable.

I will say right here and quite clearly, I am not in any sense impugning the Electoral Commissioner or the Electoral Commission in putting forward this motion.  To suggest that I am doing so is absolutely disgraceful on the part of this Government, absolutely disgraceful.  How dare they verbal me in that way and suggest that is what I was doing.

If that is what I am being accused of doing that is what the state government and parliament of New South Wales and the state government and parliament of Victoria are also doing.  That is what the federal parliament and the federal government are doing when each of those jurisdictions engages in parliamentary reviews of their elections, alongside the fact they also have electoral commissions associated with each of the jurisdictions.

If I am impugning the Electoral Commissioner and the Electoral Commission then that accusation is actually by this Government being levelled at the state parliament and federal parliament at that same time.

Nothing about this motion and the inquiry process that it seeks to establish circumvents any processes currently in the place that the Electoral Commission is undertaking.  In fact, it is complementary.  Reviews and reporting by the Electoral Commission would feed naturally into a Parliamentary inquiry into the election.  They will become excellent and valuable pieces of evidence for the Electoral Commission to put forward.  That would be the normal course of events.

Dual elections are held in other jurisdictions of course.  They have never been held here and no other jurisdiction has the particular arrangements in place around their upper House that we have had here in this state for 170 years.  Tasmania is different to other jurisdictions. We may ask, if dual elections are held elsewhere, then they could surely be held here.

I believe other jurisdictions which have dual elections have, without exception, party-dominated upper Houses.  Tasmania, until last year, had never had a party-dominated upper House and that is because of the particular design that this state gave to its upper House and the electoral process that sits around it.

The question is not whether it is possible to have dual elections; it is about the potential impact of dual elections.  I believe that is a particular matter for examination through a process such as this inquiry.  The inquiry would enable us to ask  ‘Having experienced an instance of concurrent dual elections for the first time in 167 years, what has that meant for the particular design that we have for the elections of the Legislative Council?’  What impact has it had, given that we have very particular designs in place around our electoral cycles, our electoral rules and the way we operate our upper House elections.

That very question warrants an inquiry, so that we – and the Tasmanian community – can be made aware of the impact and ramifications and so that consideration is given to that as we go forward.

It is extraordinary that the government would accuse me of putting forward this proposal for a joint select committee inquiry for political purposes.  I thank other members who provided support to me on this matter in their contributions.  It is an appalling and ridiculous accusation to make.  What political purpose do I have?  I am not a member of a party.  I am not associated with any party.  I am an Independent in the upper House.  I do not face election for another four years.  There is no political purpose for me to put this forward as a proposal.

The Government is again exposing its glass jaw on this issue.  What a shame, to default to personal attacks and spurious accusations in this place to accuse me of being political in suggesting this inquiry.  There is every reason to contemplate and to progress committees of inquiry of this sort, in a parliamentary democracy and system such as ours that values transparency and accountability, and values the role and functions of the houses of its parliament.  I know that is true, because it occurs frequently in other similar jurisdictions, as we have all canvassed here.  To suggest that putting this forward as a proposal for this parliament is based on political motivations is astonishing.  It is ridiculous and offensive.

I suggest that, with its historic third term election victory, the Liberal Government should attend to its glass jaw.  It is inappropriate for the government to be reacting in this defensive manner, with personal attacks on members and colleagues in this place.  It is time to grow up, and if this Government had any guts it would do what its counterparts in other jurisdictions at state level and at federal level, do as a matter of course.  It would support this effort to improve and strengthen our democracy. 

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT – The question is that the motion be agreed to.

 

The Council divided –
AYES  8	NOES  3
Ms Armitage	Mr Duigan (Teller)
Mr Gaffney	Mrs Hiscutt
Ms Rattray (Teller)	Ms Palmer
Dr Seidel
Ms Siejka
Mr Valentine
Ms Webb
Mr Willie

PAIRS

 

Ms Lovell

Ms Howlett

 

Motion agreed to.

 

 

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Deputy President, I move –

 

That a message be transmitted to the House of Assembly and requesting its concurrence therein.

 

Motion agreed to.

Read Meg’s media release on the passing of the JSC