ELECTORAL (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2013.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:09): It is a real shame that the next state election follows so closely on the heels of the last federal election because there appears to be a consensus that our electoral laws need fixing, but there is no consensus on what can be done quickly.

The Greens maintain that the best solution is to move upper house voting to a system of optional preferential voting and by that mechanism we would get rid of all party and group voting tickets. That reform would mean that all power to determine preferences would be put back into the hands of voters. There would be no-one other than voters deciding where preferences ended up. That is a Greens bill that we will be considering later, but I mention that to put it into context. The Hon. John Darley also has a bill which is very similar to mine and provides for optional preferential voting, the main difference being that his bill includes voting below the line as well as above the line—both methods to be optional preferential.

This bill does not address that issue, in fact it is best described as a tinkering with the current system. The objective of the government in this bill is to reduce the capacity of non-registered groups and candidates to get a prominent position on the ballot paper, to harvest preferences and thereby get elected, potentially, on a small primary vote. To quote the minister in the second reading speech:

We believe that in the available timeframe, the minimalist approach taken in this Bill will address the problem to some degree, but will not be the ultimate solution.

I fully accept that it is a minimalist approach and I also accept that it does not fully address the concerns. I maintain that we are able to fundamentally reform the vote counting system, but that is not the bill that is before us at the moment.

There are six elements to this bill that I want to address. The first is the increase in the nomination requirements. At present, a person only needs two nominators in order to get a spot on the ballot paper. The bill will require that a potential candidate receives the support and signature of 20 electors to get on the House of Assembly ballot paper and a candidate for the Legislative Council will need 100 electors, as opposed to the current requirement for two.

The rationale is that in order to earn a spot on the ballot paper you must first show some degree of support in the general community. I guess the question that arises is how hard would it be—how onerous would that task be? When you look at section 53A(3)(a) of the Electoral Act it states:

(3) A nomination paper must be in a form approved by the Electoral Commissioner and—

(a) be signed by 2 electors enrolled for the relevant district;

In relation to the lower house of parliament that would mean someone in the relevant House of Assembly district. In terms of the Legislative Council, it would be the entire state. Currently, it is the signature of two electors.

I could not find any current forms on the Electoral Commission website because of course nominations are not open, so therefore, presumably, they have not seen the need to put the form up. But when you look at the Legislative Council candidate's handbook, it says, under the heading 'Nominator's details':

The full name, enrolled address and signature of at least two nominators who are enrolled in South Australia must be supplied by non-party candidates.

So that question: how hard would it be to get those? I would have thought the answer would be: not that hard. Someone could set up a card table in Rundle Mall perhaps with appropriate signage and simply invite people to lend their name and their address, having ascertained first of all that they are on the electoral roll and that you have got them at the right address. So, 100 names, addresses and signatures probably is not that hard. There is no requirement for them to be in any way associated with the person; they simply need to lend their name and their signature to the person's nomination to be a candidate. I do not think that increasing the number of nominators from two to 100 is at all onerous, and the Greens will be supporting that move. I note that this was one of the quick fixes that Antony Green identified in his recent forum conducted by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia.

The second reform in this bill is that only registered political parties and certain groups may lodge voting tickets and therefore be above the line with their own voting square. The bill provides that, if candidates group together to be a voting group, they need to have the supporting signatures of different electors. For example, if two or more candidates want to join together as a group to have an above-the-line square, they have to provide the 100 names, addresses and signatures, and they have to be different names, addresses and signatures, which effectively gets you up to the 200 level for a group, given that a group must have at least two members.

The main difficulty the Greens have with this approach is that it does not meet our threshold test of getting rid of above-the-line voting altogether—getting rid of group voting tickets. What it does do, though, is ensure that there is a limited range of parties and candidates who will be able to be above the line; it certainly will not be everybody. The individual Independent candidates will not be above the line, but a range of groups and parties will.

The third amendment is that, if an Independent candidate wants to run for the Legislative Council, they will not have a square above the line; therefore, to be able to vote for that candidate, electors will have to fill out every square below the line. That, I guess, is consistent with the approach as it is at present: if you vote below the line, you have to number every square. I should say that that amendment is consistent with the earlier amendment to limit the number of parties and groups that are above the line.

The fourth amendment is to reduce the number of descriptive words that may be provided adjacent to a candidate or a group name on the Legislative Council ballot paper from five words to two words. I note that the Hon. John Darley has an amendment to change the number to three words, which we will consider shortly.

I thought it would be appropriate to put on the record what the current law has resulted in in terms of candidates and their descriptions on the ballot paper. I have had a quick review of the last two state election ballot papers, and I will run through the list and members will be able to work out which of these would still be valid in a two-word scenario, a three-word scenario or a five-word scenario.

Running through them for 2006: Independent for Recreational Fishers—we do not count the word 'Independent'; I think it is just the other three words 'for Recreational Fishers'—would not be allowed under the government's model but would be allowed under the Hon. John Darley's model. We then have Independent Laury Bais No Drugs—four words there, so that is not in either model; Independent Nick Xenophon-No Pokie—presumably that is five words, so it would not be allowed in that form under either of the models; Independent Terry Cameron—he has just used his name, two words, so that would not offend either of the options; Independent Ralph Clarke Buy Back ETSA—five words there; Independent Hemp Help End Marijuana Prohibition, five words; Independent Animal Liberation Ban Live Exports. In fact, I will not do the word count for each of these; people can work them out for themselves.

Then we have Independent for Social & Environmental Justice; Independent Mick Dzamko; Independent for Aboriginal Representation and Reconciliation; Independent Principles People Reform Before Parties—I must admit that is one of my favourites in terms of its grammatical construct (we have the Hon. Peter Lewis to thank for that one), and it sounds a bit like, 'She sells sea shells by the seashore,' in that it does not roll off the tongue; and Independent Andrew Stanko for Community Action.

There was also Independent Savebabe.com. I will say that one of the very rare occasions when anyone has been able to offer information on the electoral system that Antony Green was not already aware of was when I was at an electoral reform conference in Brisbane recently: he admitted that he had no idea what Savebabe.com was and I was able to enlighten him. I do not think he gets out to the cinema as often as he would like and he had not seen Babe, the film about the pig—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Or the sequel.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Or the sequel. Certainly, Savebabe.com raises an interesting question, as there is no space. Is Savebabe.com a single word or two words or does the dot count as a word? Again, the Electoral Commissioner will have some interpretive decisions to make. That was 2006. In 2010, we had Independent Mark Aldridge Change Is Necessary; Independent David Winderlich Communities against Corruption; Independent SA Fishing & Lifestyle; Independent Climate Sceptics; Independent Joe Ienco Motorsports Land Tax—again, I do not quite understand what the policy platform is there; Independent Joe Carbone MAGS 2010—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's about magazines.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Stephen Wade informs me that it is about magazines. I must admit I have never known because it is spelt in capital letters, M-A-G-S. I did not know if it was an acronym or what it was.

Then we have Independent SA Change; Independent Howard Frayne Coombe Ultra Progressive, in case 'ordinary progressive' just does not cut it; Independent Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia; Independent Social Environmental & Economic Justice; Independent Less Tax Stewart Glass; Independent Trevor Grace Save the Unborn; Independent—Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia; Independent Kelly Henderson Parklands and Heritage; Independent for Commission against Corruption; Independent Garry Mighall Water Environment Heritage; Independent Peter Panagaris C.A.R.S.; Independent No Desal No Dams; Independent Frank Williams Law and Order; and Independent Joseph Williams Indigenous.

They are the candidates from the last two state elections who have taken advantage of the ability to have the word 'independent' and then five words afterwards. Under the two models before us, whether it is two words or three words, probably about half or more of those would not be eligible to run under that name.

The next amendment in this bill is that the ballot paper will be required to list candidates and groups in an order that begins with the registered political parties and then goes to the independent groups above the line. The rationale for that, as I understand it, is to prevent the situation that currently exists where, under the current regime, a person need only provide $450 and the signature of their mother and father or any two other South Australians and they get the plum number one spot on the ballot paper and thereby secure a proportion of the vote simply by virtue of the luck of the draw.

The sixth amendment is actually not in the bill, but the government has made it clear that it is proposing to increase by regulation the nomination fee for single candidates from $450 to $2,000. Again, this was one of the reforms Antony Green had identified.

From a Greens' perspective, we are somewhat nervous about providing a very high economic bar for people to be able to engage in the democratic process. The Greens' approach has consistently been that when it comes to barriers to entry, we want barriers to entry to parliament, we do not necessarily want barriers to entry to the ballot paper, because in a democracy, people should have the right to be able to run for parliament, but a barrier to entry to being elected, I think, is quite a legitimate and reasonable thing to call for, and that barrier should be the level of public support that you have. If you do not have a level of direct public support, then you should not be elected to state parliament. So, that is where we believe the barrier should apply.

In relation to the various amendments that are filed, we will get to those when we get to the committee stage. I conclude by saying that the Greens still maintain that we can do better than this, and that we can get proper optional preferential voting. Whether it is the bill that I have before the house or the bill that the Hon. John Darley has before the house, I still believe that that is the best way to go, but we will certainly consider the minimalist approach and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:25): I have to apologise but at this late notice I have filed a consolidated list of my amendments to assist the chamber in the progress of the bill. As everyone would be aware, I still support the optional preferential system. I have concerns with the way in which this bill has been drafted because it addresses none of my concerns.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:26): Very briefly I will speak on behalf of Dignity for Disability against the second reading of this rushed and poorly thought out piece of legislation. As the Electoral Reform Society has pointed out in their submission on this bill, exactly 25 minutes was spent on this bill in the lower house from introduction to passing on 12 November. In what could only be described as an abuse of our democratic system, the Legislative Council is being asked to consider, debate and pass this bill this very week. I find it fascinating to say the least that this government claims that they consulted on this bill, yet I had not heard a thing about it prior to its abrupt introduction to the House of Assembly in the previous sitting week.

So determined to ram this piece of legislation through the parliament without the slightest concern for democratic process, this bill has now been bumped up the priority list further to number two. My office has not even been offered a briefing on this bill, and I am quite sure it is because the government is aware that this bill is a direct attack on minor parties such as mine. As also pointed out in the Electoral Reform Society's submission, this bill discriminates in favour of the major parties. That is all I am going to say at this point on the government's hurried attempt to eliminate the diversity of minor parties from our parliament. I appreciate the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Mr Hood have some amendments and I am still considering those very seriously. I also understand that there are government amendments but we have not seen anything solid on them yet, so I certainly cannot provide comment on them at this stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.