Electoral Reform

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (15:26): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your re-election and your ascent to such high office. Soon after the election, I had the privilege of addressing the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, and what they wanted me to do there was talk about, or at least put forward my view, as to how it was that Labor was retained. I gave them my eight reasons as to why that occurred, but I also told them that what they could expect from the opposition, if I was to be correct, was a fair bit of whingeing, a fair bit of sulking, and of course the comment that 'we was robbed'.

To their credit, I have not seen whingeing, I have not seen you sulking, but certainly from yesterday's Address in Reply we can expect from here that the rhetoric is going to be 'We was robbed,' and I do want to—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do want to look at the member for Davenport's contribution, where he said the system's not working, the system's broke, and that democracy was not served and is not serving the voters. The member for Davenport referred to the fairness test, and referred to the select committee that was established in 1989. As I understand it, the opposition got everything they wanted and everything they asked for in the question that was put to the referendum. As I further understood it, they shied away from the more progressive or radical (depending on where you sit) proposals that were part of the recommendations.

The rules they asked for are the rules they got. As of yesterday, the opposition rhetoric was 'The rules don't work,' 'an affront to democracy', and 'this is not a Labor/Liberal thing.' To that particular matter, I say: poppycock. Have a look at where it was that the opposition picked up its votes—votes that, under the system—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —skewed the two-party—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: You are setting a very bad example for the new fellows. If we have a look at where the opposition picked up its votes, they are votes which, under the system in my view do skew the two-party preferred vote. I will call it the 'rusted on belt of seats', Deputy Speaker: Flinders, 79.2 per cent two-party preferred; MacKillop, 76.7; Chaffey, 75.1; Mount Gambier, 71.4; and Stuart, 70.5. There are 10 seats in excess of or in the high 60 per cent two-party preferred, and a clutch of seats in the high 50s. I do not begrudge them these margins, but what it does is skew the two-party preferred vote. The member for Davenport—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Davenport also referred to the 2002 election, where the Liberals received 50.9 per cent of the two-party preferred but did not form government. But, you cannot look at 2002 without looking at the 1997 election and the period in between. Mount Gambier, for example—they picked the wrong candidate; Mr McEwen ran as an Independent, and he was caused to be an Independent—

Mr Whetstone: He was a traitor.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well then, does that make the member for MacKillop, who was a fiercely Independent member who has since come in out of the cold, a traitor as well?

Mr Whetstone: He saw the light.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Oh, he saw the light. Then there was the member for Fisher, who was certainly pushed, alienated and marginalised by the party that he was a member of; the member for Chaffey, who could have formed and been part of a coalition had the opposition worked a little bit harder at things; and then, of course, the member for Hammond, who was pushed out of the door by the party of which he was once a member. When you fold all these seats into the mix, they are in essence Liberal seats. So, the 2002 result was a result of the Liberals' own making. Our system is based on member electorates. I found the comments of the member for Davenport in one regard most interesting, where he said:

I think the public has moved past the system. I think the public has moved to a point where, when they go in to vote in the ballot, they are going in to vote either to keep a government or to change the government. They do that through voting for Fred or Mary from party A or party B who happens to be their local representative.

Mr GARDNER: Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Erskine May makes it clear that it is unparliamentary to read from Hansard.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Brains trust says no point of order. Continue.

The Hon. P. CAICA: And do it better next time, will you? It's alright, I won't finish today anyway, so I will have to resume my remarks—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Morialta: order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think that the attitude of the member for Davenport with respect to that that he said in Hansard regarding the voters Fred and Mary and others is really selling short voters—selling short the voters of Ashford, of Newland, of Florey, of Colton and many other voters in many other electorates. I have not had one voter that has come up to me to say, 'I voted for you, but I wanted a change of government.' Government is ultimately formed, despite the best endeavours of the Electoral Commission to realign boundaries to meet the fairness test, which is not an exact science, by the party that wins the most seats. I look forward to resuming this contribution at the next grievance.

Time expired.