PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (PARTY REGISTRATION) BILL Page: 85 Second Reading The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [8.30 p.m.]: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In 1999 the public of New South Wales were forced to use the largest ballot paper ever for a Legislative Council election. Between 1995 and 1999 the number of parties contesting the election jumped from 27 to 81. Further, at that time, it had become well known that the electoral system for the Legislative Council allowed at least one or two candidates to be elected virtually by chance. Legislative Council elections became a lottery, where parties were formed and people contested the election under a catchy party name in the hope of winning the prize of election to Parliament. Complex preferential arrangements between parties meant that the individual voter often had little understanding of where their vote might actually end up. In light of the community concern regarding this situation the Government, with the support of this Chamber and Parliament as a whole, took decisive action to rule out the lottery approach. This included measures to tighten the minimum requirements for registration as a political party to ensure that only those parties with a level of community support could contest elections. As a result of the Government's amendments of 1999, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 now provides that in order to be registered a party must be able to demonstrate that it has 750 eligible members. Declaration forms from each member need to be submitted. Finally, parties must be registered for 12 months before they can effectively contest an election. Since the reforms, these requirements have applied to all existing parties and to all new parties applying for registration. To ensure that the minimum 750 members identified by parties were in fact members, the Electoral Commissioner established a practice whereby he wrote to 300 of the 750 minimum members submitted by the party applying to be registered. The Electoral Commissioner asked that each of the 300 members confirm his or her membership of the relevant party by completing and returning a form in a stamped, addressed envelope. If the Electoral Commissioner received confirmation from 225 of the 300 members—being a 75 per cent response rate—the registration process would proceed. The Electoral Commissioner applied this test for the first time following the reforms. Save Our Suburbs [SOS] applied to be registered as a party in November 2001. By early 2002, because of the requirements that parties be registered for at least 12 months before they can contest an election, it became critical that parties satisfy the Electoral Commissioner's test quickly. If they did not do so, they would not be registered in time to contest the 2003 election. At the cut off date for registration in order to contest the election, the Electoral Commissioner had only received confirmation of party membership from some 215 of the 300 members of the party. As a consequence, the party was not registered in time to endorse candidates for the 2003 election. The balance of my remarks reiterate matters freely available in the public arena, matters that most members are familiar with. I ask leave of the House to incorporate the balance of my remarks in Hansard. Leave granted. The party commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court. The Judge found that the Commissioner was not entitled to apply a test to verify membership involving direct contact of individual members. The Judge was of the view that any doubt about the construction of the Electoral Commissioner's powers should be resolved in favour of the party because it involved the abrogation or suspension of a fundamental freedom (that is the right to participate freely in elections). The Government agrees that the right to participate freely in elections is of fundamental importance. However it is the Government's view, and it was Parliament's view in 1999, that to ensure elections are fair, voters need to know that any party that gains registration is a genuine party. To achieve this objective the Electoral Commissioner needs to have appropriate powers to check the eligibility of parties seeking registration. It was never the intention of the Government that the Commissioner would be forced to take the application of a party at face value. The Government doesn't believe that this was Parliament' to have s intention either. This however, is the effect of the Court's decision and as such it cannot be left to stand. Item [2] of the Bill therefore expressly authorises the Electoral Commissioner, on receipt of an application, to conduct preliminary tests and inquiries for the purpose of determining if the party is an eligible party, or if the application for registration is duly made. The Commissioner will have a broad discretion to determine what tests and inquiries are appropriate. Item [5] of the Bill makes it clear that the test already developed by the Electoral Commissioner of requiring a fixed percentage of any or all members to verify they are in fact members of the party is appropriate. As well as authorising the specific test already applied by the Commissioner, the Bill will specifically allow the Electoral Commissioner to adopt any other test for verifying membership of the party, or to make other inquiries. This provision will ensure that the Commissioner can take necessary steps to establish if persons nominated as members are really members. Item [7] will also allow the Commissioner to require a member of a party to provide a statutory declaration to verify membership. Item [3] will clarify that the requirement to advertise the application pursuant to section 66DA of the Act can be delayed while such preliminary tests are carried out. This will ensure that resources are not wasted on the advertising of applications that fail to meet the criteria. The Bill also makes it clear that these tests can be used by the Electoral Commissioner to establish if the party is entitled to ongoing registration. A failure to meet the test in these circumstances could provide grounds for cancellation. Either the current test, or any new test developed by the Commissioner can be applied for this purpose. This will ensure that the register of parties is kept under active and ongoing scrutiny. There are a number of transitional provisions in the Bill that need to be explored in detail. First, item [8] validates the specific test already applied by the Electoral Commissioner in assessing applications lodged prior to the March 2002 cut off date to contest the 2003 election. The practical effect of this is that a number of the applicants that failed to meet the Electoral Commissioner's test will be stopped from taking legal action to gain registration. The Government is firmly of the view that the policy adopted by the Commissioner was fair and appropriate to ensure that only eligible parties obtain registration. The Electoral Commissioner's acceptance of a 75 percent response rate (rather than requiring a 100 percent response rate) is not onerous. As I said, all parties in this Parliament have satisfied it. All applicants were notified as early as possible of the requirement and were warned about the cut-off date for registering to contest the 2003 State elections. The validation of the Commissioner's policy will not however affect the order of the Supreme Court to register Save Our Suburbs. So that the party can contest the 2003 election, the Bill specifically provides that registration is to be taken to have been effected on 1 March 2002. This backdating of the party's registration has been made necessary because there is currently no power in the Act that would allow this to be done. While the Judge accepted that he had no power to order registration from an earlier date, it he suggested that there may be scope to register the party and then amend the register to back date its registration. The Solicitor-General has advised the Government that there is currently no power in the legislation that would enable the register to be amended in such a way. Proposed subsection 66FA(5) will put this question beyond doubt. The amendment is being made for the avoidance of doubt. Without the amendment the Electoral Commissioner would be in an uncertain position if a party made an application to amend the register to backdate the date of registration. This is not the appropriate way to address the problem arising from circumstances where an act of the Commissioner is found to have inappropriately delayed registration, and that delay has the effect of preventing a party from endorsing candidates at an election. There may be other cases where the Commissioner fails to process an application through inadvertence or misadventure. As such, an express power to back date a party's registration has been included. This power is closely confined so that it can only be used where the application was wrongly delayed. Proposed section 66FA (4) makes it clear that the power to back date cannot be used to backdate a party's registration once the election has been held. In summary this Bill will ensure that there is no repeat of the "table cloth" ballot paper that occurred in 1999. It will provide certainty and will ensure that parties are not mislead into voting for parties that are not genuine parties. I commend the Bill to the House. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.37 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill, which we believe is an honourable attempt to reiterate the philosophy of the original legislation—the unfortunate ramifications of which needed to be addressed quickly to re-emphasise the philosophy that political parties should be properly recognised within the community. This bill will do that. It seeks to validate the Electoral Commissioner's power to apply proper tests in determining the registration of a political party. The amendment seeks to uphold the intent of the changes that were supported by all the major parties after the 1999 election, to avoid a repeat of the tablecloth ballot paper. That tablecloth ballot paper did more than anything else to destroy the validity of this House. It provided an avenue for the enemies of the House of review in New South Wales to treat it with disdain. In exercising his powers under the Act, the Electoral Commissioner established a test whereby he required 225 out of 300 people whose names were submitted as members of a party seeking registration to respond to a mail-out seeking confirmation of support for the proposed party. That test has been applied to all existing registered parties. We have all faced that test. In March, Save Our Suburbs failed by 10 to meet the commissioner's test for registration by the set deadline for parties wanting to contest the 2003 elections. The Save Our Suburbs Party appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and on 30 August the court found in its favour. However, the judge then accepted that he had no power to backdate the party's registration but suggested that the Electoral Commissioner could. In essence, the decision meant that any organisation submitting 750 names in support of an application for registration should be approved. On 24 September the Minister announced legislative changes to give the commissioner the power he requested to enable him to verify the membership of political parties, as intended in the 1999 reforms, and prevent further court challenges to the commissioner's decisions. The Opposition agrees with the bill. It is a sensible bill that upholds the intent of the 1999 changes to the Act. Frankly, it will stop the spawning of silly parties and will protect the right of parties formally established in the community to be registered, and so they should be. Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.41 p.m.]: The Greens welcome this bill, the basic intention of which is to prevent various fraudulent parties from contesting the upcoming State election. The Greens are very conscious of the rights and importance of small parties. The ability of a political party to form, to register and to contest elections is a basic and fundamental tenet of democracy. That right must be protected. Minor parties and so-called micro parties genuinely represent a sector of our society which has a right to be represented in that way. The Greens clearly remember when the Labor and Liberal parties ganged up on the Greens in Tasmania in a spectacularly cynical attempt to exclude us from the Parliament by raising the quota. We know what it is like to be a small party done over by vested interests. The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Labor Party and the Liberal Party were inept in that case. Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of Mr Gay. However, it is necessary, without diminishing the rights of small parties, to ensure that fraudulent parties cannot be easily established. The deception employed by a fraudulent party in tricking a voter into misdirecting his or her vote is no less a reduction of our democratic process than the denial of a genuine party's right to register and stand. In the last State election many thousands of voters effectively had their democratic right to a vote removed by the deception of various fraudulent parties. For example, voters who cast a vote for the Wilderness Party certainly would not have expected their vote to end up with the anti-environment forces of the far right. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Hear! Hear! Ms LEE RHIANNON: Again I acknowledge the member's interjection. For this reason the Greens believe that it is important that the Electoral Commissioner has the power to determine the bona fides of a party's members and is not forced to accept a party's genuineness without examination. Of course, this power should not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Greens accept without question that the Save Our Suburbs Party is a genuine party with a genuine right to contest the 2003 poll. The Greens have much in common with that party in policy terms, and we wish the party every success. However, to force the commissioner to simply accept the genuineness of a party's members at face value, as the Supreme Court decision would do, is a step too far. Given the recent history of New South Wales politics, it would be seriously risking the integrity of our democracy. The Greens will support this bill. The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [8.44 p.m.]: Tonight is a fairly strange night because I think probably for the first time in debate I find myself in total agreement with what the Hon. Lee Rhiannon said, and that is an epoch-making event. She is quite right in what she said. Ms Lee Rhiannon: Maybe we better go on the radio together and say that. The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: On the radio it is more fun. Let me put this the best way I can. The intention of the 1999 bill was to avoid the creation of phoney parties that were simply set up to try to garner preferences and probably to totally distort the electoral system in this House. As somebody who drafted what became the basis of the 1999 bill, I had gone to a great deal of trouble to put the bill together. I had gone to a great deal of trouble to try to ensure that the Electoral Commissioner had the means—that is, the power—to ensure that any applicant to have a party registered was applying for a bone fide party and that at least 75 per cent of the names that appeared on the application form had not appeared on a previous application to register a party. The 1999 bill got away from the previous situation in which people were required to submit only 200 names to have a party registered and in which they could use the same 200 names again and again and again to register any number of parties they wanted, and therefore again distort the electoral system. The 1999 bill required the Electoral Commissioner to satisfy himself as to the bona fides of applicants to have parties registered. He was required to satisfy himself as to the proportion of the names on the application which might have been involved in an earlier application. Frankly, I was astonished at the decision of the court, which seemed to say that the commissioner did not have the right to do that because of the method he used. I think a perusal of the bill will show that we simply required the commissioner to satisfy himself; we did not tell him how to do it. Therefore, I feel that the commissioner was probably right in the first place. Let us face it: the creation of a group of 40 parties at the very last minute before the 1999 election, in a manner that made it impossible for the Electoral Commissioner to check the bona fides of those parties, cluttered up the process and created a ballot paper that made it impossible for many voters to find the parties they were looking for. I know that my own party was damaged by a phoney party called the Gun Owners and Sporting Hunters Party, which was set up purely to divert votes from us. And it did so. The Hon. Duncan Gay: That was the Hon. David Oldfield. The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: No, it had nothing to do with them. I believe that the intention of this bill is to give the Electoral Commissioner the unquestioned power to make absolutely sure that an application to register a party is from a real, substantive group of people who have a common political interest which deserves to be represented in this House. I believe that this bill closes a serious loophole in what we tried to do in 1989, and that it will restore electoral representative democracy to this House. I support the bill. The Hon. RICHARD JONES [8.47 p.m.]: I also support the legislation, and I agree with the comments of the Hon. John Tingle and Ms Lee Rhiannon. About this time last year I noticed that a number of parties were about to be, or were trying to be, registered. Among them were, for example, the Marijuana Freedom Party—it was not the Marijuana Freedom Party; it was the Malcolm Jones Additional Partner Party—the Reconciliation Party, the Free Education Party, the Environment Party, the Anglers Party, the Stop the Greenies Party, and so on. I approached Joseph Cohen at the Sydney Morning Herald and told him about this after we had done a computer search for those who were at the registered offices of these purported parties. It turned out that virtually all of them were linked to each other. Eventually, I got a phone call from Malcolm Jones' staffer, Katherine Merrill, who was employed specifically for the purpose of setting up these parties. She was sent to various parts of the countryside with a table and chair to sign up members. A lot of these parties did not get up because eventually when the commissioner wrote to the members of the so-called parties they suddenly discovered they were joining a party they did not expect to join. A group known as "Get John Howard" asked people to sign up in Newtown, but in reality they were signing up for the Environment Party and were later amazed to find that they had become members of a political party. It may be thought that members of the Marijuana Freedom Party were too stoned to write in, but that is actually not the case. They were appalled at what had happened. They were fairly conservative people who had been asked to sign up for what was in reality the Marijuana Freedom Party. Those parties did not even look like being registered, but half a dozen parties came fairly close, thanks to the hard work of Katherine Merrill. She was the innocent party who had no idea that it was not proper for her to be paid by Parliament for setting up political parties other than those associated with the person for whom she was working, nor that it was improper to use parliamentary resources for that purpose. According to my informers, the idea was that the Hon. Malcolm Jones was trying to set up two blocs—a right wing bloc and a left-wing bloc. He was going to set up the Outdoor Recreation Party, the Four Wheel Drive Party, the Horse Riders Party, Stop the Greenies, and the Anglers Party as the right wing bloc; and on the left-wing side he was going to have the Marijuana Freedom Party, the Environment Party, the Free Education Party, and the Reconciliation Party. He intended to set up two blocs on the ballot paper in the hope of getting two members elected. Unfortunately for him the whole thing fell apart. Many months ago when the Electoral Commissioner was writing to the parties, I asked him, "John, are you sure you have the power to actually select 300 members and work out that 75 per cent must reply?" He said, "Oh yes. We have had legal advice and that is fine." Because I was aware of the legislation, at that time I did not think he had the power to be as specific as he was, and it was later decided by the Supreme Court that he did not have the power. I am aware that some of the parties that were being set up were genuine. Save Our Suburbs is unquestionably a genuine party, and it has been excluded from this legislation because it is a genuine interest group and because its members genuinely believe in what they are standing for, unlike the Marijuana Freedom Party, the Environment Party, the Free Education Party, or the Reconciliation Party. Some people have said to me that if there is one Aboriginal member of the Reconciliation Party, they would be amazed. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you going to join Save Our Suburbs? The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I would certainly like to save our suburbs, especially the suburbs around the M5 East stack, which are really in an appalling state. I must say that I would not mind helping to save some of the environment of the people who live in those suburbs. I have just had an appalling meeting with the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. It was one of the worst meetings I have ever been to. He could not answer a single question. However, I digress. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! I ask the Hon. Richard Jones to remain within the leave of the bill. The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is perhaps regrettable that we will have to do in the Hon. Malcolm Jones and that he will not be able to set up his six parties, after all. However, he has three parties to go on with, and that is not bad. He will have a bloc of three parties at the next election. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Name them. The Hon. RICHARD JONES: He has the Outdoor Recreation Party, the Four Wheel Drive Party, and the Horse Riders Party, and that is not bad. He did not get 10 parties, but he might do quite well with three. The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Are they all registered? The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Yes, they are all registered. He was able to get three registered, but not 10. That was clearly a rort and a year ago it was clear that it was a rort, so it is right to bring in legislation to prevent such rorts from occurring. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Do you know that for sure? The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I know that for sure, yes. I have very good information on that. I will swear on the Bible that it is true. I support the legislation. It is good that it has been introduced. The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are not a Christian. Are you a Christian? The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I was brought up as a Christian and confirmed as a Christian. It is good that Save Our Suburbs has been saved. Hopefully, it will do well at the next election. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.53 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support this bill. It seems that in Save Our Suburbs v Electoral Commissioner, deficiencies in the Electoral Act were shown to have resulted in anomalies. The requirement is that a political party must show within a specified period that it has 225 verified members. The period was demonstrably too short, which resulted in a genuine party with more than 750 members being unable to be registered. This bill attempts to correct that anomaly. The Hon. Duncan Gay: It does not "attempt"; it does. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, the bill corrects that anomaly. A number of new parties were registered and the name of the Hon. Malcolm Jones has been linked with that practice. At the most recent State election, a large number of political parties were involved. The preferences were worked out before the election in lodged tickets. After polling, preferences flowed according to the agreed formula. That caused great consternation among the older parties, whose members work out backroom or factional deals about who will sit in this Chamber. The Hon. Charlie Lynn: How do you do it? The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Australian Democrats do that by a democratic process. Members of the older parties work out who will sit in this Chamber by reference to who has served the longest time, what faction they are in, what ethnic group they belong to that they will be able to get money from, or whatever other criteria one might care to speculate upon. I have only watched Four Corners so I am not privy to the somewhat suspect arrangements that determine who will represent the major parties in this House. That is beyond my understanding, and I suggest that it is beyond the understanding of most people in New South Wales how the major parties have ended up with the sorry lot who are present in the Chamber tonight. Prior to the most recent State election, the small parties worked out their preference deals in a restaurant in Chinatown, and that deal was not particularly favourable to the Democrats. We are not into horse-trading but, strangely enough, prefer instead to take stands on principles. People had the option of voting "1" for parties which were, as the Hon. John Tingle has pointed out, designed merely to attract people who thought the name of the party was in some way relevant to a cause they supported, or that voting for the party would have been a bit of a lark. That system took votes away from genuine parties which were borderline in achieving their quota and only able to do marginal deals in Chinatown. It may be said, however, that the upshot of this somewhat undemocratic system is that the right-wing groups seem to have won approximately the right number of seats and the more progressive left-wing groups seem also to have won approximately the right number of seats expected of groups that are spread across a political spectrum from left to right. Admittedly that is a simplistic construct that probably dates from Marx, but as I am not a student of political science I am not an expert on such matters. In broad terms, the process delivered approximately the right number of people to the right on the crossbench and to the left of the crossbench, and roughly the correct number of seats were allocated. It could be argued that the better preference negotiators fared well and that candidates with a higher number of primary votes, and therefore should have fared well, did not. Of course the major parties are not very happy with the diversity that exists on the crossbench because that makes it harder for them to exert their will. The changes that were made in the last amendments to the Electoral Act are cause for concern. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans should not incite members to interject. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am sorry that the truth offends them. Although I would like to desist for that reason, the truth must be spoken, and whether the Opposition likes it or not is a matter that is beyond my control. If the optional preferential system of voting is accompanied by a low budget for the State Electoral Office to educate voters and a higher budget from the older parties to encourage voters to just "Vote 1", that will turn the next election into a first-past-the-post system. Anyone who is familiar with electoral systems will understand that a first-past-the-post system tends to favour large parties. Under that system, the major parties are likely to achieve a greater percentage of seats than their primary vote warrants, which is quite a worrying development for democracy. That was a consequence of the previous amendment, not the current bill, which merely deals with the defects of the legislation which have resulted in Save Our Suburbs being excluded. It is worth looking at the parties that have attempted registration. The Hon. Malcolm Jones's name has been mentioned in this regard. Some of the parties that my staff have researched include the Anglers Party, a pro-recreational fishing party, whose registered officer is a Four Wheel Drive Association representative of the All Wheel Drive Association, which was connected with the Hon. Malcolm Jones of the Outdoor Recreation Party. The Environment Party's registered officer was Garth Coulter, who was also a member of the Four Wheel Drive Association, with Margaret Coulter his personal assistant. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: This is guilt by association. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am merely listing a number of parties that my staff have researched with the Electoral Commission. The honourable member may draw whatever conclusion he will. I am merely stating who the registered officers are and the connections they have. The Free Education Party had as its registered officer Kevin Courter, who was the secretary of the Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association. The Four Wheel Drive Party, interestingly, had constitution format, font and wording very similar to that of Stop the Greenies and the Marijuana Freedom Party. That is merely an observation of the layout of its registration. The Horse Riders Party's registered officer was Frank Sazmzari, who was also the secretary of the All Wheel Drive Association, as well as the editor of its newsletter. The Marijuana Freedom Party's registered officer was Colin Richard Ellis of Pitt Town. Again, one could not help notice that the constitution format, font and wording were very similar to that of Stop the Greenies and the Four Wheel Drive Party. The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: As interesting as the speech of the honourable member is, the objects of the bill quite clearly relate to conferring on the Electoral Commissioner specific authority to do certain things, and to backdating the registration of the Save Our Suburbs Party. Whilst the honourable member might find it interesting to list parties and names, whether casting aspersions or not, nothing in the bill and its overview and objects would sustain the current basis on which the honourable member is putting forward that information. Therefore, I ask that the honourable member be directed to return to the leave of the bill. The Hon. Richard Jones: To the point of order: The purpose of the legislation—which, obviously, the Hon. John Jobling has not read adequately, because he referred to only one part of it—is to validate what the Electoral Commission has said in writing to parties that were unable to be registered. All of those parties will possibly go to court to be registered following the court case mounted by the Save Our Suburbs Party. All that the honourable member is doing is enumerating the various parties that will be affected. I think it is valid for the honourable member to do so, because this legislation will prohibit those parties from registering. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: The object of electoral legislation is better democracy in New South Wales. The Democrats are keen to have representative democracy in this State. I have said something about the nature of democracy, proportional representation and preselection methods in New South Wales. Obviously, those remarks have not pleased the Opposition. Mr Deputy-President, as you previously ruled—very wisely, I think—although the remarks may have offended Opposition members, they were consistent with our democratic right to speak. The parties, their nature and associations have been the subject of a Democrats submission to the Electoral Commissioner. Those parties may well attempt registration by the process used by the Save Our Suburbs Party. Thus, my remarks on the nature of the composition of those parties, as obtained from the Electoral Commission, is extremely apposite to the bill and the process of registering political parties. The Hon. Malcolm Jones: To the point of order: Allegations have been made to me, both tonight and on an earlier occasion, by honourable members of this place. I pointed out, by way of a personal explanation— The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! Is the honourable member speaking to the point of order taken by the Hon. John Jobling or taking a separate point of order? The Hon. Malcolm Jones: The matter has been reported to ICAC. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Is the honourable member speaking to the point of order that the remarks of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans are outside the leave of the bill? The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: I believe so. I pointed out the protocols regarding complaints to ICAC laid down in ICAC information. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Not for a member of Parliament. The Hon. Malcolm Jones: I read the protocols to the Chamber on an earlier occasion. If members contravene those protocols by continuing with their allegations, notwithstanding my advising them of the various protocols— The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member seems to be referring to allegations made about him personally. Those matters have nothing to do with the point of order. The Hon. John Jobling took the point that the bill has the two main objects that he mentioned. However, this Chamber has always allowed wide latitude to members making second reading speeches. I remind the honourable member that his comments should generally be within the leave of the objects of the bill. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I will be relatively brief. I was referring to the variety and nature of parties that may attempt registration following the precedent set by the Save Our Suburbs Party. As such, they will come within the gamut of this legislation. Obviously, if the Electoral Commissioner follows the rules and the clarification of the Act set out by this bill, he will be required to make decisions on the registration of those parties. Therefore elucidation of the nature of the parties researched by my office and put in a submission to the Electoral Commissioner is relevant. The Reconciliation Party, the Save Our Suburbs Party, the One Nation NSW Political Party, and Stop the Greenies are relevant parties in that respect. Stop the Greenies seems to have a constitution format, font and wording very similar to those of the Marijuana Freedom Party and the Four Wheel Drive Party. The registered officer of the Fishing Party is Rob Smith, who has been negotiating regarding fisheries legislation. Then there is the Workers Party. The bottom line to all of those parties is, I think, that under the above-the-line optional preferential system—if I am correct and the two major parties run a vote-one campaign—many of their preferences will not be relevant. The anomaly is that the major parties will, as a percentage, get more seats than is commensurate with their primary votes. That is a bad deal for democracy. But I return to the point under debate. We support the legitimacy of Save Our Suburbs meeting the requirement to enrol 750 members in a timely fashion, and problems associated with the checking of that by the Electoral Commissioner, a matter addressed by the bill. We ask that there be a neutral process that is above reproach and able to withstand scrutiny so that genuine political parties, with real public support, can be distinguished from brand-name parties intended to mislead the voter by their not-well-known names, so that some parties will have more people elected to this House than their voter base warrants. If the Government and Opposition are very concerned about this, they might consider a later bill giving effect to proportional representation. That would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps, as the Democrats have suggested, both Houses could be amalgamated under a proportional representation system, providing better democracy in New South Wales. The larger parties may not want to do that, for the extraordinary reason that they might then have only the amount of power that their primary vote suggests they ought to have. The Democrats support the bill within its existing framework. The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [9.09 p.m.]: I support this bill, most specifically because it secures the intention of the changes that were made in 1999, which I strongly supported at the time. The previous system was extremely inappropriate in many respects. It was inappropriate not only because of what took place in 1999 with regard to what resulted in what has commonly been called the tablecloth system of voting, but also because ultimately it allowed for the election of people to this place who had little or no voter support of any kind. First, it was inappropriate because the system was wrong and, second, it was inappropriate—and it was ultimately amended—because that wrong system led to a tablecloth system of voting with a whole series of parties that were questionable at best. Members were elected to this House in an almost dishonest fashion through what might be called under-the-table preferences—something that will certainly be addressed by the new system that has now been reinforced by this legislation. As the new system is more in keeping with the optional preferential system of the lower House, that is probably the best of the systems that we have available to us and the best of the systems that are used in Australia. I have a particular dislike for the full preferential system that is used at the Federal level, most specifically because, in a sense, it is an assault on democracy. It forces people to register a formal vote by voting for candidates they do not wish to vote for. They have to vote for certain people on the ballot paper before they are able to vote for the people they wish to vote for. The optional preferential system in New South Wales, which enables us to vote for any of the candidates that are available, is the fairest system. However, we should not be forced to vote for a person to whom we do not wish to give a preference or vote of any kind. So the full preferential system, which is quite undemocratic, should be done away with in favour of the optional preferential system employed in the New South Wales lower House. It is particularly appropriate that we will now employ that optional preferential system in the upper House. It will have a tendency to cleanse this Chamber whilst still allowing for the election of minor parties that have a reasonable level of voter support. Whilst the intention of the Senate and the New South Wales upper House might not have been what I am about to describe, it has been suggested that those two Houses allowed for the election of members who were representative of smaller parties that had legitimate interests but would not under any circumstances have any chance of being elected at a lower House level. That is clearly the case in relation to parties such as the Australian Democrats and the Greens, who I acknowledge have secured a Federal lower House seat—something that would not be repeated at a general election. The Hon. John Della Bosca: The Australian Democrats have not. The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: That will probably not be repeated other than under the same exceptional circumstances that occurred in Cunningham. I said earlier that, whilst that was not the intention of either the Legislative Council or the Senate, it is appropriate that there is some provision for minor parties to be able to play a representative role for those who wish them to be elected, given their lack of opportunity to be elected to a lower House seat. The Hon. Richard Jones: There will be fewer Independents. The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: Perhaps no Independents will be elected. It is really a matter of people voting for and electing those they wish to elect. Under the new system Independents might not be elected other than on the basis of popularity in the electorate, which is appropriate. What we had before was an extremely inappropriate system. People placed a "1" in a box for the party they supported and, unbeknown to them even to this day, in many instances they elected people they would never have dreamed of voting for. The unfortunate aspect of the previous system was the clear element of people placing a vote for the party they wished to represent them and for the party that they wished to support. Unbeknown to them at the time—and in most cases unbeknown to them even to this day—their votes were exhausted by under-the-table preference deals which enabled members to be elected to this House who did not have a right to be here on the basis of voter support. I do not wish to name any party, but it is most unfortunate that the system has been rorted to such a degree. There are people in this Chamber today who, under normal circumstances, should not be here. This legislation will fix overcome that, whilst at the same time allowing minor parties with a legitimate and reasonable level of support to have a representative elected. The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.17 p.m.]: I support the comments made by my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon. Since I became a member of Parliament in 1995 I have watched this process unfolding with great interest. Democracy in the upper House is in a shambles, and I commend the Special Minister of State for introducing legislation to resolve some of these issues. Tragically, because of the dishonesty and underhandedness of some people who took advantage of the previous voting system, many smaller groups, or what might be termed micro-parties, have not been able to field any candidates. The Greens do not object to those parties having an opportunity to participate in our democratic system and use their preferences in a way that might benefit like-minded parties. During the 1999 election we had the so-called tablecloth voting—a cynical and underhand rorting of the system. People legitimately went to the polls and exercised their democratic right in the belief that they were voting for the Wilderness Party when they were voting for a lie. They thought they were voting for the Stop the Greens Party but they were voting for a party that was established to funnel votes. All sorts of really cheap sideshow tricks were performed and some members were elected to this House who should not have been. We need transparency and a reasonable concept of democracy. The Greens support the proportional representation system and the optional preferential system. Initially when I had a conversation with the Special Minister of State, who introduced this legislation, he could not quite comprehend the concept of the Greens exhausting their preferences—something the system has allowed. I am thankful for that as it has afforded us greater flexibility and democracy, which are worthwhile pursuits. The Greens look forward to being able to participate in an electoral system that is responsive to the community. As recent events have clearly shown, the community seeks an alternative to the major parties as well as choice on the part of the voter. However, the cynical manipulation of this system, as evidenced in 1999, must be remedied, and I commend the Government for its remedy in that regard. As a member of the Greens in this House, I hope that in the lead-up to the next election voters will be given control. During the last election campaign the activities in terms of so-called preference negotiations and the backstabbing that was undertaken were incredible. It certainly was not democracy, because the public had no idea what was going on. In many cases the public had no idea that the upper House party they were voting for was not reflected in the name of the party. These changes, which allow people to vote 1 for the party of their choice, or to vote 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on across the line—which is not dissimilar to a lower House vote—return the power and transparency of the vote to the voter, which is extremely important. As a member who will again seek election and, one would presume, will be involved in a degree of negotiation with all parties who are willing to discuss such matters with us, I believe it is important that we get away from the tacky, underhand and dishonest exercise of preference voting. It got out of hand during the last election campaign, but in my book it is always a dishonest activity because it does not relate fairly back to the voters. Of course, we can only judge it on the results. The purpose of bill is not to advantage either major party or upcoming parties such as the Greens. From my perspective, it is simply an attempt to deliver democracy in a real way. As a member of the Greens I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [9.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to debate on this bill. For the most part, the Government concurs with the observations made during the debate, and commends the bill to the House. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Extract from the NSW Legislative Council Hansard of 23/10/2002 - Proof This page maintained in the LC Hansard Articles - 52nd Parliament database on www.parliament.nsw.gov.au. Last updated 24/10/2002.