Hon Giz Watson asks about the impact of the Vickie Lee Roach High Court decision on WA prisoners' voting rights. Hon Sue Ellery responds that the government will amend the Electoral Act to conform to the ruling before the next state election.

AnsweredQoN 774Legislative Council
Asked
19 September 2007
Portfolio
minister representing the Attorney General

QuestionView source ↗

PRISONERS - ELECTORAL FRANCHISE
I refer to the recent High Court decision in Vickie Lee Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Commonwealth of Australia, which overturned the disenfranchising in commonwealth elections of prisoners who are serving a sentence of three years or longer. (1) What impact does the decision have on the right to vote of Western Australian prisoners? (2) Will the Attorney General introduce a bill to implement the High Court decision for Western Australian elections? (3) If yes to (2), when? (4) If no to (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(1) What impact does the decision have on the right to vote of Western Australian prisoners? (2) Will the Attorney General introduce a bill to implement the High Court decision for Western Australian elections? (3) If yes to (2), when? (4) If no to (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Will the Attorney General introduce a bill to implement the High Court decision for Western Australian elections? (3) If yes to (2), when? (4) If no to (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(3) If yes to (2), when? (4) If no to (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (2), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(1) The High Court’s decision in fact ruled that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that prevented a person serving any sentence of imprisonment for an offence against a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory from voting in an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate were invalid. The court went on to rule that an earlier provision that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more from voting was valid and continued in force. The High Court’s decision has cast doubt on the validity of section 18(1)(c) of the Western Australian Electoral Act 1907, which is in similar terms to the impugned commonwealth provision. (2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(2) The government is moving to amend the Electoral Act to conform to the High Court’s ruling. (3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Prior to the next state election. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more