ELECTORAL (COST OF BY-ELECTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:57): I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition in relation to the Electoral (Cost of By-Elections) Amendment Bill 2011. The Liberal Party will be opposing this bill. It proposes that political parties affiliated with a retiring member of the House of Assembly should be responsible for paying the Electoral Commission's costs to run a by-election.

As the Hon. Mark Parnell has previously stated, the bill aims to make succession planning or party renewal through by-elections difficult. A registered political party would not need to pay for a by-election if a member died or vacated a seat for a reason covered by section 31 of the Constitution Act 1934; that is, they had consecutively not attended for 12 sitting days, ceased to be an Australian citizen or took an oath to a foreign power, became bankrupt, an insolvent debtor or a public defaulter, been attainted of treason, been convicted of an indictable offence or become of unsound mind.

Costs levied in advance would be determined by the Electoral Commissioner under the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill, based on an estimate of the reasonable costs incurred by the Crown to hold the by-election. The Hon. Mark Parnell estimates that the cost of a by-election would be around $200,000.

The bill allows the commissioner a discretion not to pursue costs where the by-election was caused by circumstances beyond the member's control. The costs are based on the cost in advance and the bill would allow the commission to pursue the debt, even when the party does not field a candidate. Between 1857 and 1994 there were 181 by-elections. That is, on average, 1.3 per year. In the years since 1994, there was only one by-election and that was in the electorate of Frome in 2009. The opposition does not agree with the honourable member that by-elections are so endemic or abused that such a proposal as this is warranted. Even where by-elections have occurred and are about to occur, there may have been quite reasonable explanations as to why a by-election should occur.

In terms of the health of the parliament, it is better that a member who no longer wants to serve resigns rather than leave their electorate effectively unrepresented. If this bill was passed, members such as perhaps the former premier and treasurer would effectively be forced to stay in their seats even though their remaining interest in representing their seats had waned. There is also a range of unforeseen circumstances that are legitimate reasons for vacating a seat that have nothing to do with a party positioning itself for future success.

For example, the South Australian community may benefit from the resignation of a member who has been the subject of public disgrace. Both the electorate and their party may be happy to see them relinquish their seat but, despite the fact that their actions were completely against the will of the party, it is the party that would suffer the consequences. Parties should not be responsible for the unforeseeable actions of their members. A political party also has an incentive to use its best efforts to avoid unnecessary by-elections to minimise the risk of an electoral backlash at a by-election.

The bill does not treat all members of the House of Assembly equally, either. For example, an Independent, under this bill, would be allowed to vacate their seat without the possibility of carrying costs. The bill places a financial barrier on a party and a candidate's ability to participate. The bill essentially introduces a minimum $250,000 nomination fee on the incumbent party only. As a result, the public may be denied an opportunity to consider a candidate from the political group of their choosing. The costs would likely outweigh the cost of the campaign itself making it either cost prohibitive or, at the least, unfairly disadvantaging the incumbent party.

There are also a number of ways that the bill could be easily circumvented and the intent of the bill abused. For example, a member could resign from the party before they resign from parliament; secondly, a member could resign in a way that fulfils the compulsory requirements of section 31 of the Constitution Act—for example, they could fail to attend 12 consecutive sitting days or they could relinquish their Australian citizenship; or, thirdly, a party could back Independent Liberal or Labor candidates.

The Electoral Commissioner would also have the discretion not to pursue payment. Such a process unreasonably involves the commissioner in a retiring member's personal affairs and then penalises their party for their personal decision. The opposition is of the view that this is unreasonable. The Liberal opposition strives to see the parliament full of committed MPs and MLCs who will dedicate all their energies to representing their constituencies. For all of the reasons that we have outlined, we will be opposing this bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (21:03): It will not surprise the Hon. Mark Parnell that the government opposes this bill for many reasons. For the purpose of some background, this bill is identical to a previous bill that the honourable member brought to this house shortly after the resignation of a former premier, the Hon. Mr Kerin. In spite of what looked like a hurried effort from the honourable member to bring a bill as swiftly as possible in order to capitalise on some relatively cheap and easy publicity, it appears again with the same flaws as before.

First, the bill stipulates that it applies to resignations of members who may, immediately before resigning, be a member of a registered political party. There are many problems with this application. What if the member resigns from the political party days before resigning from parliament? That would save their political party hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. Indeed, in the reverse situation, what if a member of parliament moved from being an Independent to join a political party and then resigned? They would cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to an unsuspecting party's coffers.

Secondly, the bill has the effect of providing an unfair financial advantage to members of parliament who are not a member of a political party over those who are. There is no sound policy basis for the financial advantage. It may be argued that political parties are more able than an individual Independent member to afford a by-election. However, I do not believe that this is always so. One cannot impose standards of behaviour for some members of parliament but not for others, based entirely on that person's being a member of a political party. If the honourable member was serious about trying to prevent the resignation of MPs costing the state, through by-elections, he would have drafted a bill to see all such MPs pay by-election costs.

I believe that members of this house, and those members in the other place, take very seriously their responsibilities as elected members. If, for whatever reason, a member of parliament feels that he or she is unable to fulfil their duty to their constituents, they should have the option of resigning to allow a new and enthusiastic member to fill the vacancy without fear of penalty.

Democracy does not come cheaply. By-elections are expensive, as are other aspects of the democratic system. This bill undermines our South Australian democracy for the sake of low-rent political grandstanding. It goes too far. The government opposes the bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:07): I thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and the Hon. Stephen Wade for their contribution. I can tell that, on this occasion, this bill does not appear to have the support of the council, and I will not be dividing on it.

I just point out that the circumstances described by both honourable members in their contribution were not, in fact, the reason we had the last by-election nor the reason for the forthcoming by-elections. It has not been any of those; it has been the local member being tired and not prepared to see out a term they were elected to serve. So, I think this bill does have a great deal of merit.

I have noted carefully some of the sneaky backdoor methods, if you like, that both honourable members advised could be employed to circumvent the intent of this legislation. It may well be that some minor amendments could improve this bill if it is to come back before the chamber. My gut feeling is that, even if it was foolproof and was not able to be subverted in any way, I still doubt that the current political parties would be supporting it.

By-elections are expensive, but I appreciate that the whole of the democratic process is expensive. The intention of this bill is to sheet home unnecessary taxpayers' expenses to those responsible for it. Whilst I still believe that this bill has a great deal of merit, I appreciate that it is not the will of the council tonight to support it. But I look forward to further debate on our democratic processes and making sure that taxpayers are getting the best value from their elected members and the best value for the elections that are held to select those members.

Second reading negatived.