Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2014.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:38): We had progressed quite far along in my contribution last time, but there are a number of points I would like to make in my remaining time. Whenever we look at change and when we look at the evolution of South Australia, it is instructive to look at history. It is difficult to look at history merely from trying to read newspapers or understand text from that time. It is really good to get firsthand experience.

To that end, I was extremely fortunate to be able to catch up with former premier Steele Hall, a man who should know a thing or two about electoral reform and the reform of the parliament. We talked about a great many things, and I said, 'How long did it take to change the electoral system that gave weight to rural residents?' Premier Hall said it took over a decade. It took over a decade of Don Dunstan railing against what he saw as that injustice and for there to be action. It was a constant, long-term campaign by a young, energetic pink shorts-wearing member of parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not all the time.

Mr KNOLL: Yes. What struck me most was Steele's words in relation to why, in the end, electoral reform was undertaken. In Steele's words, the reason for the change was that the electorate had moved on. The city population was growing, and this necessitated a change in the electoral system. In fact, we had seen over many years the shift of South Australia's population from the country to the city, and this necessitated that change. Indeed, by the time it happened, he said that it was a case where South Australia had moved on and that these were merely common-sense changes that were then supported.

It was more about evolution than straightforward unfairness, and can I say that I think we have hit that time again. I think we have come to a time where current-day South Australia has moved on from the current electoral system, where the primacy of individual electorates has given way to a greater statewide focus, brought about by increased media attention, the all-pervasiveness of social media, and the plethora of ways in which people can engage with a statewide campaign.

We see more presidential-style campaigning, and indeed the activities of the leaders of the government and the opposition are very much at the centre of the way campaigns are run. This is now, in essence, what I believe people are voting for, and I think we need to have a system that allows and reflects that style of campaigning and that style of focus when it comes to elections. I believe that a top-up system would place voting for your local member on a much more equal footing with the party that receives the majority vote.

There is a way to achieve both aims. This idea that we are talking about 24 seats in the house versus winning a majority of the two-party preferred vote does not need to be on a mutually exclusive basis. Indeed, the top-up system is a system where both those aims can be guaranteed to be achieved. I think that serves the people of South Australia much better by them being able to get both of the things they want—the local member they want and the party that they want to form government. With modern communications, with information dissemination, this is the way South Australia needs to go.

In closing, can I say that South Australia has moved on. In the elections over the previous years, we have shown that South Australia has moved on, and it is time for the Labor Party to catch up with the people of South Australia.

Mr GARDNER: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There not being a quorum present, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:44): Just to make sure I am absolutely clear on this, I believe we are dealing with a private member's bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You haven't been listening in your room?

Mr Gardner: Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's the one I was listening to. I wanted to say a few words about this. The first point I wanted to make is that I think all of us in this place agree that there is a need for a conversation about parliamentary and, quite probably, constitutional reform in South Australia. There are a number of issues that are sitting around the place, and some of those are issues which have been ventilated by the opposition, some of those are issues that the government has raised, some of them refer basically to amendments to the Electoral Act, in effect, and some of them look at more profound changes, for example the tenure of people in another place; and having spent a few minutes there recently, my views have been reinforced.

Let's try to confine this particular conversation today not so much to the outcomes that all of us would like to achieve, because I suspect there are things that we would all have in common and there are some things that we may differ on. Without going too far down the track, for example, the proposition advanced by members of the opposition was that there was some failure of the electoral redistribution process which in effect denied the opposition a favourable outcome at the last election. That is a conversation that has been advanced by members of the opposition.

I simply make the point that if the number of seats which were won by people who were non-Labor candidates, in the context of those seats being notionally Liberal Party seats, was 24, and the number that were won by the Labor Party candidates was 23, that means that, all other things being equal, the redistribution that occurred in 2012 produced exactly the sort of result that it was intended to produce. The fact that two of those seats—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, sure, but given the two-party preferred vote, which is a mathematical fiction, etc., etc. Two of those seats were in fact won by the member for Fisher and the member for Frome. It is not reasonable to say it is the government's fault that in what would notionally be a Liberal Party seat a person who is not a member of the official Liberal Party ticket has won one of the seats. That is not our doing and that is an internal issue for the Liberal Party; it is not an issue for the Electoral Commissioner or an issue for the boundaries commission.

More particularly, we have now two contending models sitting there to deal with electoral reform. We accept that electoral reform and parliamentary reform is important, and we have said that from the time of the election. There are issues like, for example, optional preferential voting in the other place to deal with the scourge of microparties. Let's have a look now at what is going on in Canberra and the absolute mayhem that has been let loose in the Senate because of the outcome of not being able to deal with that problem.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Being sold a pup.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, being sold a pup. The situation is basically this: what is the best way forward for us to have the conversation? Bear in mind that all of us are going to have different priorities about what should be in that conversation, and we are going to have different priorities about things we want to see happen out of this conversation. That is the question. It is the how question, not the what question.

There are two contending models as to how. The first model is the one the government put up, which is to have a joint house parliamentary standing committee to which all matters of concern relating to these issues can be referred and that those members of parliament, who will be in that committee, will call such evidence as they need to call, will hear from such witnesses as they need to hear from, and that can include academics—it can include anybody they want. That is model number one.

Model number two is the one that is being advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. Model number two basically says this: there is to be an inquiry. The inquiry is to be led by three commissioners. These commissioners no doubt are intended by the Leader of the Opposition to be quite august and meritorious individuals, and they will go off and prepare a report which they will then bring back.

Presumably, and inevitably, that report will simply be a report to the parliament by a bunch of people who are not members of parliament, and that report will make recommendations to the parliament coming from a bunch of people who are not members of parliament. The parliament will be perfectly entitled to say, 'That might be your view, commissioners, it's very interesting, but, guess what: we don't agree with you,' and into the wastepaper basket it will go.

The Hon. P. Caica: Like so many other reports.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Like so many others. In the time I have been here, I have learned one or two things and they are that, when it comes to things of particular interest and, understandably, particular knowledge of members of parliament, members of parliament are reluctant to have people who do not know what is going on tell them how things should work in a perfect world. It just does not work.

My suggestion, and the government's suggestion, is simply this: for goodness sake, let us elect members of the opposition and members of the government in both houses. Let both the major parties—and the minor parties for that matter—advance all of their grievances. Give it to this committee. Let the committee call whatever evidence they have to call. Let the committee bring back a report to the parliament, but that committee will be a committee of this parliament.

The people sitting on that committee and writing that report will be members of this parliament. They will be able to debate in this chamber and the other place all of the recommendations of that committee. That is a fundamentally different proposition than to have some outsiders, albeit well-meaning and perhaps well-qualified people otherwise, trying to tell the parliament how to do the parliament's business.

I also point out, and I know this is a matter of detail, that it is quite peculiar for a bill not only to propose something like this but also then to go on and talk about this subsidiary committee which is created in the schedule which names the members who are going to be on that committee—and one of them, unfortunately, is not with us anymore, because the member for Fisher is named. This proposition, naming the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Bob Such and the Hon. Geoff Brock, whether or not they wish to be involved (and one of them, as we know, is unable to be involved), is so prescriptive and unhelpful. What we should do is say to each chamber, 'Each of you are going to get a certain number of spots. Just work it out for yourselves.' We then will have this standing committee of the parliament which can then get on and have a look at these issues.

I strongly agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we do need to have a grown-up conversation about parliamentary reform and about constitutional reform. I strongly agree with that, and the government strongly agrees. My quarrel is with the mechanism, and I fear that a mechanism which involves handing over to outsiders a conversation which needs to occur with and be persuasive of members of parliament is bound to fail and it will just waste valuable time.

For that reason, and that reason only, I object to this method. I do not support this method. I do, however, endorse and welcome the idea that the Leader of the Opposition has embraced the notion of being open to parliamentary and constitutional reform. That is good. I am happy about that. All of us on this side are happy about that. We are not happy with this method.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:54): I do not support the proposition before the house, for the reasons that were very well articulated by the member for Enfield (the Deputy Premier), and believe that the proposition to establish a select committee of members of both houses would be a more appropriate and proper way to go.

Having said that, like others on this side, I am not against having a proper discussion on things that may well be required to deliver some parliamentary reform, particularly in the other place. However, I just want to make this point: if you are really serious about having an inquiry, I think the inquiry should be into why the opposition lost the election. I say that because—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, they should have an internal inquiry, or even get people in from outside, and ask, 'How did we lose that election?' I can give you a few hints as to why I think you did.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Let them find out for themselves.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, the simple fact is that on this side of the house we have people who are very used to being campaigners in marginal seats. You know that yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have won five elections as a marginal seat person over a period of time. The fact is that you did not, as was the case with the member for Ashford, start campaigning two, three or four months out from the election. You do it 24 hours a day, seven days a week over the four-year electoral term. Maybe not 24 hours a day. If you are not doing it 24 hours a day, you are probably dreaming about it. The simple fact is that marginal seat campaigning starts immediately after an election—

Ms Chapman: You shouldn't say terrible things about Chloe.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, Chloe lost. You won that seat; I accept that.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: The only person who is insinuating terrible things about Chloe is you.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before we go any further, the deputy leader did spend some time out of the room, so she is back to clean, but I am going to call her to order.

Mr Gardner: Can you get him back to the bill?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, without interjections we might make some progress.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am talking about the bill. In fact, I am talking against the bill. I am talking about where an inquiry should lead, and that inquiry ought to lead to how useless you were with respect to the last campaign in regard to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said order. I am bringing him back.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said order and I know he is going to come straight back to the topic.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am. You cannot win an election, Deputy Speaker, by not differentiating yourselves from the government of the day. You cannot win an election by being a small target. You cannot win an election by not saying what you mean and meaning what you say. You cannot win an election if you are going to only ever say, 'We need to take the handbrake off the economy.' You cannot win an election if on the very last day of the campaign you tell people to vote for Labor if you are the Leader of the Opposition.

The point I am making is this: elections under our Westminster democratic system are won on and by the party that wins the most seats. That is simply a fact and it is not going to change in the near future. What the opposition is doing by putting forward this proposal is actually a bit like sour grapes: 'God, we lost; we should never have lost that. We want some type of reform in place that's going to guarantee us a better chance of winning.' Well, I am telling you right now that the best chance you have of winning is getting off your backsides and working harder than you have in the past—it is as simple as that.

Nothing that we ever put in place is going to take away the fact that it is still going to be the party that wins the most seats that is going to be delivered government. For all intents and purposes, you can continue to get 77 per cent, 79 per cent, two-party preferred in Flinders, 73 per cent in MacKillop and 70 whatever it is in the seat of Chaffey (it is above the 70s), but I am quite happy to continue to get 51.5 per cent in Colton, although I would like a bit more of a buffer. But I will take that any time as a marginal seat to ensure that that works towards delivering our party back to government. So I do not support this bill before us, but I do agree that we need to have a proper and mature discussion about electoral reform—

Mr Knoll: It sounds like you don't want any.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do want some, but I do not want what you want. Why on earth would we give this to someone else, to three commissioners, to go away and come back and tell us what they think when we could be in charge of our own destiny? I would urge the opposition to support the government's proposal to establish a standing committee made up of members of both sides of the house. I will also tell you this—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order. Member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: The member is speaking about a different bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is coming right back to topic.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will also say that, with respect to parliamentary committees, we know from time to time that they have also delivered reports which are collecting dust around this place, but bipartisan approach to electoral reform determined by a committee of the parliament, this parliament, will only ignore those recommendations at its own peril.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:00): The Leader of the Opposition has presented this bill in good faith to establish a commission of inquiry for electoral reform with independence. Much has been said in this debate about the outcome of the last election, and it is pivotal to the basis upon which the Leader of the Opposition presented this bill; namely, to have a short inquiry by independent parties deliverable by 1 July 2015 dealing with this question of how is it that the objectives in our constitutional obligations in respect of boundaries and electoral mandates for the purposes of election success have got it so wrong?

We can argue the point about what happened at the election, who should have won and all those things. They have been traversed in many speeches in the house in the last six months. The Leader of the Opposition has presented a formula so that, rather than having a group of us advise us on what we might do to remedy this situation—and, clearly, we will never agree—we actually have independent parties do that.

I think it is rather churlish of the government to say, 'Let's have mature conversation' when, in many instances, they appoint independent parties to give advice to the government on how they progress their business. If there is going to be a genuine review of what we do and how we can do it better, and have some level of independence, then having independent parties is a sensible way to go.

Recognition of the fact that the across-the-board representation of the parliament is included in the committee of appointment, or the panel that is going to select the parties, is why the late Hon. Bob Such was included. He was included because he was an Independent member in this house. Sadly, his passing means that he could not be offered membership on that panel in that regard. I think it is rather churlish of the Attorney to suggest that the approach here is faulty because we have a nomination from the Leader of the Opposition, and the nominee is now deceased.

We think this is a superior model and much more likely to be effective. The public, indeed, in their contribution on any submission they might make, will also see this as a level of independence that is important. The Attorney appointed Mr Brian Hayes QC to conduct a panel inquiry into planning law in this state and reform, and appointed a number of people independent of the parliament to carefully examine what we have and how to do it better. It is exactly the same formula. I find it rather disappointing that the government will take this approach.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition would want me to thank those who have made an enormous contribution to consideration of reform—those many people who wrote, emailed and telephoned the leader and other members on our side of the house (and probably to the government as well) after the election saying, 'Fair crack of the whip; something needs to be done.' There is a serious problem if the public is not able to rely on there being an outcome that is consistent with their voting.

It may be, ultimately, that a panel of inquiry identifies that determinations of one or more of the commissioners under the electoral boundaries had erred—that is possible. No-one would escape the inquiry in relation to the nature of what is being presented, and how that operates may need to be strengthened. Clearly, something is not working, and we are keen to have some electoral reform in that regard. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for carefully considering this bill. In presenting this bill to this parliament, I thank him for his attempt to have a fair representation, to remove the political mischief or motive and to have an independent panel in that regard.

I am disappointed the government has been so fulsome in their rejection of this, rather than look at a body which will obviously be partisan in its contributions. That is particularly disappointing. It is a little bit like saying, 'Let us have a Legislative Council committee that will consider whether we should abolish the Legislative Council or reform it.'

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: As the member says, 'That will work—not.' It is absurd. We cannot internalise this and give the public a true and considered assessment of what that position is.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: If the member for Bragg is offering that as an inducement, I might need to reconsider my position.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have not advanced any expansion of the terms of reference for this committee. That is another matter; it is not an electoral matter. That is obviously parliamentary reform as distinct from electoral reform, and the Attorney well knows my view. I only point to Queensland whenever anyone raises with me the question of abolition of the other place. The upper houses are worthy and they do make a contribution and section 10 of the constitution is important, and I do not think I will be changing my mind any time soon in relation to that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I know the Attorney is now whimpering away with the new pathetic shrinking from their 100-year old tradition of abolition of the upper houses and what a dastardly waste of money they are and that they are now into this sort of principled reform. The reality is that we are proposing a targeted independent body in relation to a specific problem which we think would have merit and which the public would appreciate. I am very disappointed, as is the Leader of the Opposition, that the government has taken such a narrow and immature approach to this.

Second reading negatived.