❓ Question regarding the WA government's decision to allow prisoners serving sentences of up to three years to vote, challenging the Attorney General's justification and proposing a reversion to a one-year cut-off. The Attorney General defends the decision based on High Court rulings and alignment with federal legislation.
AnsweredQoN 264Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PRISONERS — ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS
I refer to the proposed change to the Electoral Act 1907 that would allow prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of up to three years to vote at the upcoming state election. (1) Why did the Attorney General state this morning on radio 6PR that the Carpenter government had no choice but to make the cut-off point three years, when the High Court has only ruled unconstitutional a complete ban on all prisoners from voting and has made no pronouncement about what the cut-off point must be? (2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the proposed change to the Electoral Act 1907 that would allow prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of up to three years to vote at the upcoming state election. (1) Why did the Attorney General state this morning on radio 6PR that the Carpenter government had no choice but to make the cut-off point three years, when the High Court has only ruled unconstitutional a complete ban on all prisoners from voting and has made no pronouncement about what the cut-off point must be? (2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(1) Why did the Attorney General state this morning on radio 6PR that the Carpenter government had no choice but to make the cut-off point three years, when the High Court has only ruled unconstitutional a complete ban on all prisoners from voting and has made no pronouncement about what the cut-off point must be? (2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(1) Why did the Attorney General state this morning on radio 6PR that the Carpenter government had no choice but to make the cut-off point three years, when the High Court has only ruled unconstitutional a complete ban on all prisoners from voting and has made no pronouncement about what the cut-off point must be? (2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(2) Why has the Carpenter government not proposed a reversion to the old cut-off point of one year so as to prevent more serious offenders convicted of crimes of violence, sexual offences, drug offences and offences against children from being entitled to vote? (3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(3) If this has been an oversight, will the Attorney General now remedy it by amending the legislation to make the cut-off point one year? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
(1)-(3) Two years ago, we thought it appropriate to say that if people have offended against society and have placed themselves so far out of society that they are sentenced prisoners, they should not be entitled to vote in state elections. That was the legislation that we passed. That legislation was comparable—in fact, in relevant senses, identical—with the legislation that was passed by the Howard Liberal government at the federal level. Last year, the High Court ruled that legislation constitutionally invalid. It said that a blanket ban on prisoners being entitled a vote offended against the Australian Constitution; therefore, it was invalid. For that reason, at the recent federal election in October last year, the commonwealth reverted to its former legislation. That legislation provides that prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of three years, or less, are entitled to vote, and prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of more than three years are not entitled to vote. The High Court made the observation in the case of Roche that the old federal law, with the three-year limit, was constitutionally valid. However, it said that a blanket ban was not constitutionally valid. I have discussed this matter with the state’s legal advisers, and the advice that I have received is that we have no choice but to amend the legislation, because our existing provisions could well be challenged before or after the coming state election, and they would be ruled invalid. That would mean that, were we not to give prisoners the capacity to vote, the election could be interfered with or overturned after the event. Therefore, we need to change the law. The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
The member for Murdoch has asked why the cut-off point is not one year. There are most probably two reasons for that. The first is that there is doubt about the constitutional validity of having a one-year cut-off point. That is the simple advice that I have received. The second is that in the last federal election, prisoners who are serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years—exactly the people whom the member for Murdoch is referring to—were entitled to vote. It seems to me that to make sure that our legislation is constitutionally sound, and to maintain harmony between the federal and state electoral provisions, given that we operate a joint electoral roll, the course of action that we have adopted is most appropriate.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.