Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Electoral (Preferential Voting Reform) Amendment Bill ELECTORAL (PREFERENTIAL VOTING REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19:49): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is designed to introduce an optional preferential voting model in South Australia. It is in many respects similar to the bill introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell a couple of weeks ago. I commend the Hon. Mark Parnell for the work he has done on this issue, but I think if we are going to have optional preferential voting then it ought to be full optional preferential voting which applies both above and below the line on the ballot paper. That is the main difference between the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill and the bill that I am proposing. I should point out at this stage that, given the Hon. Mark Parnell intends to bring this bill to a vote today, I will be moving amendments to his bill that are in line with my proposal. In short, this bill would allow a voter to indicate his or her preference for as many or as few candidates as he or she wishes both above and below the line on the ballot paper. If a person chooses to complete only one box above the line, then any surplus votes will be distributed according to the preferences indicated by the party or group. If a person chooses to complete more than one box above the line, then any surplus votes will be distributed according to the order that they, as voter, have indicated. The same would apply for below the line votes. A person may, for instance, want to indicate their preference for two, three or even 10 candidates and that would be perfectly acceptable. The bill also contains a number of additional provisions aimed at reducing the rate of informal votes. The benefit of this model is simple: it removes the ability for parties to concoct backroom deals in exchange for preferences and puts voters directly in control of how their preferences are distributed. Importantly, it does so without requiring them to complete all the boxes below the line. As candidates from a group or party are either elected or excluded from the count, a person's vote becomes exhausted: that is, it will no longer be able to be transferred to other candidates (whether they be Independents or from political parties or groups) based on preference deals. This will result in a reduction in the number of microparties who set up purely on the basis of favourable preference deals. As the Hon. Mark Parnell discussed in relation to his bill, the results of this year's Senate election have left many Australian voters in utter disbelief. As we all know, the most obvious example of the impact that backroom preference deals can have involves the election of Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who was elected to the Senate, ahead of Liberal senator Kroger, as a representative for Victoria with just 0.051 per cent of the primary vote. An article printed in The Australian last month illustrates how, courtesy of preference deals negotiated on the advice of political consultant Glen Dreury, Mr Muir managed to get over the line having received only 17,083 first preference votes, a tiny proportion of the 483,076 quota required. According to the article, Mr Muir's first big gain came from the Fishing and Lifestyle Party's elimination, giving him 97 per cent of its 16,404 votes and taking him from 15^th to 11^th spot, resulting in candidates from the Katter, HEMP and Shooters and Fishers parties being eliminated before the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party. Mr Muir then got 88.1 per cent of HEMP's 21,679 votes, taking him to seventh, past the Animal Justice, WikiLeaks and Rise Up Australia candidates. He then got 94.8 per cent of the Shooters and Fishers' 29,009 votes, moving him to fifth spot, followed by 71.3 per cent from Family First's 70,379 votes, which moved him to third spot. After the Greens' Janet Rice secured fifth spot, Mr Muir received 97.7 per cent of the Palmer party's 165,092 votes, and 86.6 per cent of the Sex Party's 202,741 votes to reach the quota ahead of senator Kroger, who received 388,178 votes after receiving surplus votes from the two Liberals elected earlier in the count. These are rather astonishing results. The election for Western Australia's senators also demonstrates the effect preference deals can have, with the initial count showing a result of Zhenya Dio Wang for Palmer United and Louise Pratt for Labor being elected. However, after a recount, Wayne Dropulich for the Australian Sports Party and Scott Ludlam for the Greens have been officially announced as the successful candidates, despite the fact that nearly 1,400 ballot papers were declared missing at some stage between the first count and the recount. The recount was prompted by the extremely close result which, at one point, had the distribution of preferences turning on a margin of just 14 votes. The case of the missing ballot papers has obviously complicated matters in Western Australia, with the matter looking as though it is headed towards a High Court challenge. As we know, preferences are not always directed to where the voters think, or sometimes even assume, they may go. For example, in Western Australia the Australian Independents' preferences went to the Shooters and Fishers, yet only 17 people who voted below the line mirrored this preference. Similarly, Family First's preferences went to the Sports Party before the Australian Christians. In the election for Tasmanian senators, Jacqui Lambie from the Palmer United Party, widely known for being pro mining, was elected largely due to preferences from Labor and the Greens. It is not only voters who make assumptions about preferences. The Australian Democrats, Sex Party and Liberal Democrats were widely anticipated to do quite well in the election due to the preference deals struck before the election. However, it was anticipated that voters would take matters into their own hands and vote below the line, which negated the preference deals. The distribution of preferences in South Australia also provides interesting reading, with the Palmer United Party, again pro mining, assisting the Greens and the Greens, together with the Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party, assisting Family First. In terms of primary votes, Family First and the Greens candidates were successful in gaining seats with 0.26 and 0.49 of a quota respectively, while Labor and the Nick Xenophon Group candidates were unsuccessful with 0.58 and 0.74 of a quota respectively. These are the facts of how the current system operates. Yet, there is no question that some of these results have left many Australian people scratching their heads and questioning how it is that our electoral system can allow these results to occur. I am extremely mindful of the fact that many people will argue that it was preference deals that enabled my predecessor, Nick Xenophon, to enter parliament back in 1997, but I think we all appreciate that the issue of backroom preference deals or preference harvesting was not as prevalent then. There certainly were not the same sorts of numbers of microparties setting themselves up at the time and ballot papers were certainly not growing to the length of a tablecloth. I think we just have to accept that it is time to move on. This brings me to the feedback I have received from the government and the opposition regarding the implementation of an optional preferential voting scheme prior to the March election. The Electoral Commissioner has indicated that, in her view, it would be virtually impossible to achieve this end in the time frame available. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell would agree with me in saying that this is simply not the case. As alluded to by the honourable member, we are not proposing sweeping reforms that have not been contemplated in the past, nor are we talking about issues that cannot be overcome. In closing, there is certainly an appetite for change, not only in this jurisdiction but across Australia and I would urge honourable members to give serious consideration to this matter. I am more than happy to work with honourable members to come up with an appropriate solution in the time frame available. Let us not place this issue in the too-hard basket. South Australian voters deserve better than that. With that, I commend the bill to the council. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.