House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Electoral (Optional Preferential Voting) Amendment Bill ELECTORAL (OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 12 July 2012.) Mrs VLAHOS House of Assembly Taylor Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (10:49): I would like to continue my speech from a previous sitting day on this matter. Every vote for the eliminated candidate, where no further preferences are indicated, cuts the number of votes remaining in the count. A winning candidate needs to have 50 per cent of the total vote remaining in the count, not of the total formal vote. This means that, whereas under compulsory preferential voting successful candidates can genuinely claim to represent their electorates as they have ultimately won the support of an absolute majority of electors for their seats, a candidate elected under optional preferential voting cannot necessarily say this. For this reason compulsory preferential voting is a more complete and accurate expression of the vote. Thirdly, evidence from Queensland, where I grew up and where optional preferential voting was introduced in 1992, shows that under optional preferential voting elections may become de facto first past the post contests as electors plump, that is, mark only one preference on their ballot paper. In the 2001 election in Queensland, over half the electorates effectively became first past the post contests, with 47 of the 89 seats being won on the primary vote. A Queensland Electoral Commission ballot survey of 11 seats found that almost 60 per cent of voters across the board voted for just one candidate. That was not an isolated occurrence. As part of its analysis of a survey of ballot papers from the 2009 state election, the Queensland Electoral Commission found that approximately 63.03 per cent of ballot papers were marked '1' only. At the 2006 election, 62.15 per cent of the surveyed ballot papers fell into this category as well. Similar results have been noted in local government mayoral elections in South Australia. A 2005 report by the State Electoral Office on optional preferential voting, which examined results from five mayoral contests in 2003, found that 46 per cent of electors completed a first preference only, with electors indicating preferences just behind at 44 per cent. Only 10 per cent gave partial preferences. The report noted a correlation between the number of candidates and the incidence of plumping. The more candidates, the more likely electors were to provide just one preference. I need not remind members that in the house elections more than four candidates usually contest any seat. The problems associated with optional preferential voting are not limited to the house. As candidates and groups contesting elections for the other place will still be able to lodge voting tickets, votes cast above the line will, in many cases, have a greater effect than those cast below the line, the latter being exhausted far earlier in the count where the elector's preferred candidate is eliminated and no further preferences are allocated. For this reason, and all of the things previously said, the government opposes this bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.