Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:21): I last spoke on this matter on Thursday 7 August, so it has been a fair while, but I am delighted to be able to come back to this and support my leader who introduced a bill a few weeks before that to establish a commission of inquiry into electoral reform in South Australia. The reality is that we have in South Australia a system where the people of South Australia do not get the government they want; even worse than that, we have a situation where the people of South Australia, election after election, cannot get rid of the government that they do not want. That is the situation we have had both in 2010 and again in 2014. If we do not do something about it, the long-suffering people of South Australia will face the same dilemma in 2018.

It is, by and large, the people who live outside of metropolitan Adelaide who are severely disadvantaged by this gerrymander. I will call it a gerrymander because that is what it is. It is the people outside of the metropolitan area who are largely disadvantaged. Those people, time and time again, want a different government. They want a different set of policies but they just cannot achieve it; notwithstanding that right across the state, in the last two elections, we have had a majority of the people of South Australia who want to get rid of this government, and want a government of a different persuasion with different policies and different ideas and a different vision for the future of this state.

We do need a commission of inquiry, we do need to move on this, and we do need to deliver to the people of South Australia a system that allows them to vote for and get a government that they want.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:23): I am very glad to rise to support this bill today and, in particular, support the comments by the member for MacKillop and the former member for Davenport. In discussions with the former member for Davenport he said this is an issue that is not going to go away and it is an issue that needs to be prosecuted over a long period of time. As someone in this place who is a bit younger and starting out, I am very happy to take up that mantle.

I will agree from the outset that, under the current rules that exist, the Labor Party won the last election. I think the fact that they sit on the other side of the chamber from where I sit is testament to that fact, and they were able to form government.

Mr Gardner: Well, they did get nearly one in three votes.

Mr KNOLL: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No interjections!

Mr KNOLL: As an opposition, we need to look at where we went wrong and we need to look at reforming our strategies in the lead-up to the 2018 election. My comments today do not come from a place of denial about the 2014 election result. I am very keen to put that on the record because I severely dislike this debate being one of carping and whingeing on behalf of the liberal opposition—because it sincerely is not.

Instead, the question we need to ask and the question that this inquiry seeks to ask and have answers on is: what is the best system of government in South Australia, the best system of voting that delivers the most correct outcome in South Australia? The answer to that question is not a static answer; it is one that does evolve, and has evolved. I go into the old chamber from time to time and note the fact that there was a time when all the seats faced in the same direction, facing the Speaker, instead of having two sides of the house arguing in an adversarial fashion, which is a much more modern construct of our system.

It has been mentioned gleefully by members opposite in discussions inside and outside this place, especially from the members for Newland, Kaurna and Colton, about their marginal seat strategy and the fact that they campaign in marginal seats and give undue attention to marginal seats at the expense of the rest of the state. They are gleeful about the fact that they believe this would have helped them win the election on the day. There was a victory, but it was a very shallow victory because it did not put the needs of the state first, it put the needs of the Labor Party first.

On this point I would like to say that I do not blame the Labor Party for its actions. The current system incentivises marginal seat focus, and we have to ask ourselves whether that is the correct incentive for voting in South Australia. Is that the incentive the people of South Australia want to give their politicians? There is often much maligning of and discussion about the fact that politicians do, indeed, focus only on electoral results, and to that I say, again, that the system incentivises and encourages that. As politicians we merely rationally go about playing the game by the rules of the game that are then presented before us.

This means that there are 10 to 12 seats, mostly in the north-eastern and south-western suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide, that are considered marginal, and this is traditionally where elections are won or lost—although I do note the member for Mount Gambier's great contribution to the Liberal team at the last election. In a state of 1.6 million people that is basically saying that there are only 300,000 to 400,000 votes that matter, and I do not think that is democracy at work. This is not what Don Dunstan, who railed for at least a decade on what he then called a gerrymander, called one vote one value.

I look at many members opposite, and the fact is that it is not just country electorates such as the member for MacKillop's that are ignored, it is many areas of metropolitan Adelaide that are also ignored—in the north and the north-west. These areas also deserve equal and due focus. In attempting to bring youth culture into this place, a common saying is, 'Don't hate the player, hate the game.' In this case I do hate the game, and I do believe that we need to look at better models. That is exactly what this inquiry is seeking to do.

In this place we have previously spoken about a different system called the 'top up' system, a system that exists in many other jurisdictions around the world, most notably New Zealand and Germany. It is a system that, firstly, ensures that the party that wins the majority of the votes wins government. It is a system that is foolproof in ensuring that a majority vote leads to government. More importantly, I think, it will also reduce the incentive for politically-motivated economic decision-making. It means that a vote in Schubert, a vote in Taylor, a vote in Port Adelaide will mean as much as a vote in Newland, Colton and other areas of the state. It will mean that instead of focusing attention on a core crux of seats, winning primary and two-party preferred votes all across the state becomes equally as important to lead into an overall result.

That is a very important thing. The people of South Australia, in attempting to push their politicians to make better decisions, can deliver them a system that incentivises them to make better decisions. Winning elections is about the survival of the government and doing what you need to do in order to win, and that is entirely rational. However, once the game is changed I think we will see decision-making based on merit and based on a whole-of-state approach, and that can only be good for the people of South Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.