Quinn Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11008] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak to the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I think it is appropriate that in speaking we canvass just the key issues because I have noticed a tendency particularly from the Opposition benches to focus on matters that are not part of this bill and to canvass issues around campaign financing and third-party financing which have nothing to do with this bill. So I would like to focus my comments on the key issues of this bill because those other matters are being dealt with in other bills two of which are currently before another select committee. 
This bill is really a reorganisation bill that focuses on restructuring the current two organisations namely the Chief Electoral Office’s functions and the Electoral Commission’s functions into one consolidated organisation. Like any efficient Government we look to bring together and reduce overheads and reduce bureaucracy and this is just another simple example of what this bill does. In due course there will be a second phase which will occur after the next election when the electoral rolls will be moved under the umbrella of this organisation. The reason that has been delayed until after the next election is simply the magnitude of the task required. 
During the select committee deliberations there was only one contentious issue. I guess it was not even contentious but it was one issue that engaged robust thought and discussion—the appointment process and whether the organisation should come under the purview of Officers of Parliament or whether it should be a Crown entity. As has been referred to at various stages of the bill’s passage through this House we received a number of very thoughtful considered and concise submissions from well-qualified people. Having given due weight to those thoughtful considered and concise submissions in the end it was the unanimous view of the select committee that for reasons best captured by the submission of David McGee QC the organisation should not come under the purview of Officers of Parliament but rather should be a Crown entity. 
For the record I note the main reason for that and will read the relevant part of his submission: “Unlike the other Officers of Parliament”—here we are talking about the Auditor-General the Commissioner for the Environment and suchlike—“who are not themselves primarily deliverers of programmes the Electoral Commission would have a major programme to deliver at least once every 3 years—the administrative arrangements for a general election. Even with its other functions … the Commission is an active player in this area of activity. This contrasts with the existing Officers of Parliament whose involvement in government is more as an auditor of how agencies have performed rather than as performers themselves.” It was really over this business of the Electoral Commission having to administer a programme as opposed to auditing and commenting on other programmes that the select committee was swayed by this very thoughtful and considered submission of David McGee QC. So with those few words it gives me great pleasure to join with all sides of the House in support of the third reading of this bill.