House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Electoral (Telephone Voting) Amendment Bill Electoral (Telephone Voting) Amendment Bill Electoral (Telephone Voting) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 19 October 2022.) The Hon. D.G. PISONI House of Assembly Unley The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (10:46): I am pleased to rise to support the Electoral (Telephone Voting) Amendment Bill. I think all of us in this place are here because we believe in the democratic system. We believe in giving people every opportunity to have their say, every opportunity to participate in the democratic process. I am very proud as an Australian, and as a South Australian in particular, that we can boast that we have one of the most accessible democratic systems in the world here in South Australia. I know regarding many of the particularly newly arrived ethnic communities—whether they be communities from Africa, communities from India—how surprised they are that they can go to an event and a member of parliament, a government minister, or even the head of the government, the Premier or the Prime Minister will be there and that they have an opportunity to speak with them and even have them sitting at their table. Many migrants tell me that this is a very unusual situation and they would never see that happening in their own country. I also think it is fair to say that it does not matter where you come from, or what your background is, what your start in life is; in Australia, there is an opportunity for you to participate in many different ways in the democratic process, whether that be at a local government level or even on a school council. Many people, I think, get a taste for making a difference when they simply make a decision to join the governing council of their child's school and they go in with a view to have a broader contribution to the school. My experience on governing councils is that that is the majority of those who put themselves forward. There are a minority of people whose motivation is to try to get a better outcome for their particular child, but they do not last very long. I think that is the same in all tiers of governance. Those who go into that process with a view to support the community and make improvements in their community—whether they have a direct benefit or direct interest or not—are the ones who survive in politics at various levels and are actually able to make significant change. Their representation, of course, whether it be local government, state government, federal government or any other elected body, relies on people having the opportunity to vote for a preference to have a particular candidate or another candidate represent their views. I think most South Australians, and indeed most Australians, know that for anybody they support, or the party they support or the ideology they support, they are not going to support every element 100 per cent. Something in this country that I think has bipartisan support is the right of people to vote and giving people every opportunity to vote. I remember John Howard, when he was Leader of the Opposition back in the mid-eighties, I think it was, telling a similar story about the Australian system of access, the Australian system of democracy. When he was a young member for Bennelong before he was a minister, he was in line to vote and the person behind him said, 'Hello, I know who you are, but I'm not voting for you.' They continued to chat and be jovial. Can you imagine that happening in another country? Imagine being a Democrat in Texas and being in the same line, for example, and having a similar conversation. I think there might be a different outcome. So we are very lucky. I say 'luck', but I think it was hard work by our founding fathers to ensure that we had a system that was fair, a system that respected different views. In the end, it was a majority decision of the public to enable the formation of governments and who their parliamentary representatives are, whether that be a majority in an individual seat, whether that be a majority of seats or whether that be a majority of the vote. That is why telephone voting removes a barrier for a number of people who had difficulty voting before the ability of telephone voting. It is being used for the first time in the current local government elections, I understand. I have heard Glenn Spear, one of the candidates for the City of Mitcham, encouraging people to use telephone voting if they are having difficulty with their ballot papers—reading them, or they have misplaced them or whatever. They can use that telephone voting option. I thank the member for Heysen for bringing this bill to the chamber. I think every single one of us in here supports a system of government that enables as broad a participation as possible. It is a complete contrast to what we have seen in some states of America, where we are actually seeing barriers being put in place, particularly in front of people who are disadvantaged or who are perceived as being disadvantaged, to make them jump through hoops in order to even register to vote. I certainly would not like to see a process like that happening here in Australia. As a matter of fact, this bill shows that the opposite is happening: we are actually making it easier for people to participate in that process. It is just like an extended period of pre-polling being important as well because not only might people have physical disabilities but they might not be available, whether they are overseas or they are not well or they are working. Saturdays are never a good day. I know that, certainly when I was in business, Saturday was the busiest day of the week in the shop. Having the option of being able to vote in an election and having that two-week period, I think gave many more South Australians the ability to vote at the last state election and at the federal election. I commend the bill and encourage members to support the bill in the parliament. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Elizabeth Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:54): I move: That the debate be adjourned. The house divided on the motion: Ayes	25 Noes	16 Majority	9 AYES Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Malinauskas, P.B. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J. NOES Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Brock, G.G. Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M. (teller) McBride, P.N. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J. PAIRS Koutsantonis, A. Patterson, S.J.R. Szakacs, J.K. Marshall, S.S. Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.