ELECTORAL (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2013.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (11:02): I rise to close the debate on this bill. I thank honourable members who have made contributions to date. We are, of course, as we all understand, limited in terms of time for conduct of debate on this bill. The government is concerned that we need to be able to address the sorts of issues that arose in the recent Senate election, where micro-parties gamed the system. I note with optimism—I hope the optimism is still alive—that both major parties have agreed to a review of the voting system for the election of Legislative Council candidates. The government looks forward to working with all members in the chamber in relation to this for the next election.

I now turn to answer briefly matters raised in relation to this bill in the other house. The opposition sought clarification in relation to the new regulation-making powers of clause 9. I note that this provision has already been passed by the parliament in the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill 2013, and would commence, but for the current bill before the house, in July 2014. I am advised that it is standard regulation-making power that is used to provide flexibility in relation to the subdelegation of certain uncontroversial administrative decisions.

I can confirm that at this stage there are no matters intended to be included in subsection (2)(e). A decision was made to commence the provision earlier, attaching it to this bill, in light of the intention to increase the nomination fees for single candidates. The flexibility provided by these regulation-making powers allows this change in the regulation to occur by virtue of subsections (c) and (d).

The government has had a number of conversations with the Electoral Commission—and I am sure other honourable members have as well—to ensure that any reforms proposed do not interfere with the integrity of the votes, and that is why we have proceeded with the amendments that we have. We would prefer, of course, to adopt optional preferential voting, or even the Sainte-Laguë system for the next election. The Sainte-Laguë system would eradicate the problem and would at the same time be easy to count; I understand it is a system in use in New Zealand and in various electorates in Europe. I understand there would be no requirement for computer software to count that system, and it would be fairly easy to explain to the voters. In the words of Antony Green, 'Sainte-Laguë is a very simple system and overcomes the biggest hurdle to implementing change ahead of the state election, and a more complex preferential solution would have required the SA Electoral Commissioner to modify her accounting software.'

At this stage, at least, I understand that we have not convinced the majority of the members of the chamber to support the Sainte-Laguë system and do not expect our amendment to be successful in that regard. The government has filed amendments to this bill following conversations with many members and are open to continuing these conversations to achieve the best possible outcome. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that it have power to insert a new clause in relation to applications for registration of political parties.

Motion carried.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–2]—

Page 2, after line 14—Insert:

4A—Amendment of section 40—Order in which applications are to be determined

(1) Section 40(3)—delete 'period of 6 months immediately preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934' and substitute:

prescribed period

(2) Section 40—after subsection (3) insert:

(4) In this section—

prescribed period means—

(a) in the case of an application relating to a political party that is not a parliamentary party—the period of 6 months immediately preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934; or

(b) in the case of an application relating to a parliamentary party—the period of 80 days immediately preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934.

For the sake of clarity I should point out that I will not be moving my first set of amendments. The amendments from the first set that I intend to move have been consolidated into [Darley-2]. This amendment seeks to enable a parliamentary party the opportunity to formally register outside of the six month time frame provided for under section 40 of the legislation. The 80-day time frame is intended to enable parliamentary parties to meet all of the existing requirements under the act and give the Electoral Commissioner sufficient time to meet those requirements.

For the benefit of all members, a parliamentary party is defined under section 36 of the act as a party, at least one member of which is a member of parliament of South Australia or a senator for the state of South Australia, or a member of the House of Representatives chosen in the state of South Australia. In practice, this amendment would enable a sitting member of parliament, like me, the opportunity to register a parliamentary party in time for the next state election if they so wished.

The reason for the amendment and, indeed, all of the amendments that I am proposing, is straightforward. The government has, through its bill, shifted the goalposts on both sitting members of parliament and other candidates who are intending to run in the next state election. They have done so after the close of party registrations. They have opted for a model that favours major party dominance. The private member's bill that I proposed, and that proposed by the Hon. Mark Parnell, sought to get rid of, once and for all, dodgy back-door preference deals.

The bill we are debating right now has nothing to do with getting rid of preference deals. It is clearly intended to disenfranchise Independents and minor parties. The only winners here are major parties. I, like the Hon. Mark Parnell, maintain my position that the best and fairest option available to us is an optional preferential voting model. However, given the time constraints, I know it would be impractical to insist on such a change in this instance.

However, it is quite clear, I think, that this bill will get up in one form or another. That said, I will do my level best to ensure that Independents and groups are not disadvantaged to the extent that is proposed by the government. The government and the opposition have nothing to lose by allowing parliamentary parties to become registered before the next election.

Before concluding my remarks, I would make the comment that I think this bill ought to be the subject of a sunset clause, irrespective of the amendments that are agreed to, so that this matter may be revisited after next year's election. I did seek some advice about inserting such a provision into my amendments and there were some complexities involved. That said, it is not open to such a proposal.

If at this stage it is too difficult to have a sunset clause drafted, I would ask both the government and the opposition to give an undertaking on the record that they are committed to reviewing the Electoral Act after the next election and considering seriously a bill based on optional preferential voting. With those few words, I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment is opposed by the government. It is the government's view that party registration, whether it is a parliamentary party or not, should be resolved well before one month out from polling day. This amendment would see registration being determined as late as February. The registration process involved in party registration, including the objection and appeal processes, should occur within a longer time frame. The government believes there is sense in the current time frame, after all members in this place have had the best part of four years to register as parliamentary political parties.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition indicates that we do not support the Darley amendment. In response to the question the Hon. John Darley asked of both the government and the opposition, in fact I might wait for the answer from the government before offering the opposition's answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not know what the question was you are waiting for an answer on, Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In that case, because the government apparently was not listening—and the Hon. John Darley might clarify if I have misunderstood the question—my understanding was that the Hon. John Darley asked both the government and the opposition to give an undertaking that we would review the electoral system after the election and support the introduction into this parliament of a bill based on optional preferential voting.

I think I can give the undertaking on behalf of the opposition that we will support an appropriate review of the Electoral Act and the administration, and so forth, post the 2014 election. We are attracted to a joint select committee parliamentary committee approach to that review but it may well be that, depending on what comes out of the election, there might be particular tasks that might be reviewed by other bodies.

In relation to whether or not we would support the introduction into this parliament of a bill that would introduce optional preferential voting, my expectation is that we would wait for the outcome of the review. If the recommendations of the review incline the Liberal Party to the view that optional preferential voting is the best system, we will either introduce a bill or support a bill that is introduced. I hasten to say, considering that I have been fortunate enough to be elected to this place for the 53^rd parliament as well as for the 52^nd parliament, I have every expectation that as a member of the 53^rd parliament I will be considering an OPV bill, whether it is a Liberal bill, a Labor bill or a bill from another private member.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think I said in my second reading close that the government's preferred position is to introduce optional preferential voting, and certainly the Sainte-Laguë system, but I think I understood—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You can't have both.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, you can.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: No, you can't. Sainte-Laguë is not preferential. How can you give optional preferential in an non-preferential system?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think the operative word is 'optional'. That is our preferred position, but also I can happily say that we are committed to working to achieve further reform in this area. We look forward to perhaps in the future parliament establishing a joint standing committee to investigate broader options for reform.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just to highlight the difference between the approaches, I can assure you ours will be a joint select committee; it will not be a joint standing committee.

New clause negatived.

New clause 4B.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Darley–2]—

Page 2, before line 15—Insert:

4B—Amendment of section 53—Multiple nominations of candidates endorsed by political party

Section 53(2)(b)—after 'amount' insert '(which may not exceed $2,000)'

I will speak to amendments Nos 2 and 3 together as they relate to the same matter. Clause 9 of the government bill amends section 139 of the act to enable fees to be fixed by regulation. During his second reading speech, the Attorney made it very clear that the government's intention was to increase by regulation the nomination fee for single candidates from $450 to $2,000. Members will note that in the first raft of amendments I had drafted I proposed that the nomination fee for single candidates be capped at $1,000 in the legislation itself, rather than through regulation.

Whilst this is still my preferred position, I appreciate that I would not have the support of the major parties because of the lower amount I propose. For that reason, I have chosen somewhat reluctantly to ensure that the amount is capped in the legislation but at the same time increase the maximum amount payable to $2,000. This is entirely consistent with what the government has proposed, and I see absolutely no reason why the government should not accept this amendment.

Once again, for the record, I do not agree that the amount should be increased to $2,000, but at the same time I hold concerns that the actual amount the government prescribes by regulation could be a lot higher. If this amendment is supported, at the very least the government will be bound to the comments it has made on the public record and therefore prevented from further disadvantaging candidates at the next election. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes these two amendments of the Hon. Mr Darley. It has already been indicated to this parliament that the government intends to raise the nomination fee for single candidates by regulation to $2,000 and no more. It is appropriate that fees for nomination remain in the regulations. If such fees require review or readjustment, this may be done without the need to amend legislation every single time; setting a maximum statutory limit interferes with this flexibility. If members have a problem with any part of the regulations, the house always has the option of disallowing the regulations, as I believe was demonstrated in 2012.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition has engaged in extensive consultations with the government over some weeks on a range of matters, and it would be fair to say, not surprisingly, that there has been a particular focus on those discussions in the last two days. At a briefing which the Attorney-General arranged for, I understand, all parliamentary groups within this council yesterday, the Attorney-General invited the opposition to consider whether there are opportunities to strengthen what I call 'miscellaneous 2', but of course what this house knows as the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) Amendment Bill 2013, the bill we are considering now.

In that context we identified two particular opportunities to strengthen the bill, strengthen it in the context of our strong view that optional preferential voting, Sainte-Laguë and a threshold should not be considered for the 2014 election. That is not the government's view, I accept that. I imagine that we would have suspension of standing orders in both places if the Liberal Party indicated it was willing to be courageous and experiment with Sainte-Laguë before 2014, but we are not.

So, in the context of our, what I believe to be, responsible approach as custodians of the electoral system and the electoral act, in the context of none of those three experiments being undertaken for the 2014 election, the Attorney, as I understood it, was inviting us to think of opportunities to strengthen miscellaneous 2, whether there were steps the parliament could take to protect the electoral system from undemocratic influences in the context of what is hopefully a short-term issue because of the proximity of the 2014 election.

In that context and for the sake of transparency, we have indicated to the government that we would be open, at least as a short-term measure, for the nomination fee to go as high as $3,000. The other suggestion we made is reflected in government amendments the government has tabled.

So, it is up to the government as to whether they want to put an undertaking on the record, but what I can say is the Liberal opposition, the opposition party, does not support this amendment and we would not object to a government nomination fee as high as $3,000. We do accept that that is 50 per cent higher than the fee currently payable in the commonwealth, but we are agreeing to that in the context of appropriate short-term measures that can be taken to protect our electoral system.

To bring those comments back to the amendment, we will not be supporting this amendment because our good faith discussions with the government, which perhaps I would suggest have not been reciprocated with the proceedings in this house this morning, would mean that we need to maintain the flexibility for the government to take the nomination fee as high as $3,000.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: At present under section 53A of the Electoral Act, when you nominate for either the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council you have to fill out a nomination paper, and you have to pay a deposit of the prescribed amount in cash or a bankers cheque. The government has pointed out that when in legislation is says 'prescribed amount', that means prescribed in regulations and therefore the parliament has the ability to disallow regulations.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that we are unlikely to have that opportunity between now and 15 March. The government could pass a regulation tomorrow and as the bill currently stands they could put whatever amount they wanted and there is nothing that anyone could do about it. The Hon. John Darley's amendment at least seeks to put an upper cap on the amount that is payable.

The Greens' position is that we have used the language of 'barriers to entry' and we have said that our primary objective was to have some sort of a barrier (but I think threshold is probably a better word) of entry to parliament and that threshold should be some level of support, not a numerical threshold (I know we will get to that later) but a threshold which means that to be elected you must have some level of support.

We have never subscribed to the view that to be elected to parliament you must be rich, that would be undemocratic and we would not support that but, having said that, there does need to be a sensible deposit set which does require some level of seriousness before a person puts themselves forward for election.

If the amount was to be $3,000 per candidate, and the Hon. Stephen Wade suggested that they were open to that idea, then you think about it: a party that wants to contest 47 Lower House seats and run a team of three in the Upper House requires $150,000 cash to contest the election. I can certainly speak from some experience that that is $150,000 less that you would have to spend on anything else to do with the election.

Sure, if you get 4 per cent of the vote, you will get your deposit back. But $150,000 cash sort of sitting there in the Electoral Commissioner's piggybank, if you have paid in cash—there are only two ways to pay it: cash or bankers cheques—that is a huge amount. Even at $2,000 per candidate, that is $94,000 total for the House of Assembly electorates and another $6,000 for a team of three in the upper house: that is $100,000 in cash that you have to find to contest the election. So, the stakes are quite high.

At present, the government has the discretion how to set the amount and, given that the opposition has said that they are prepared to go even higher than the government has talked about, I think that the ramifications on our democracy are quite serious. So, the Greens will support the Hon. John Darley's amendment. It is not saying that the deposit should be $2,000; it is at least setting a cap on it. The minister said, 'Well, you've removed flexibility and you have to come back to change the regulations.' My response to that is, 'It is not such an onerous task every four years to set the amount or to invite parliament to increase the cap on the amount.'

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It's not as if we're going to forget about it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No. My colleague interjects: this is a matter that does focus the mind of parties and candidates; it will not be forgotten. Certainly, it seems for now that the Hon. John Darley's amendment is a sensible one and at least sets the upper bound which candidates and parties will need to be saving towards if they are to contest the 15 March election.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I do not often speak when government and opposition are in agreement, but I think that this is a very significant issue, and I think that the Hon. Mark Parnell has outlined it quite well. I think that it is important to know why we are debating this bill at all, and that is, as the minister said a moment ago in his second reading summing up, this issue is really borne out of the so-called gaming of the system in the Senate and that we have seen people elected to the Senate on very, very small votes, which I think, generally speaking, the public would not support—certainly, that is the feedback we have had to our offices.

That is the situation we are dealing with and, because of that situation, it makes some sense to make it more difficult to have massive ballot papers, with candidates who really stand very little if any chance at all of getting elected, although, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said—whenever it was; I did not have much sleep last night, but the other day, or maybe yesterday—what we do not want are substantial barriers to entry for being on the ballot paper, although there should be some reasonable barriers to entry to actually being elected to parliament, certainly for an eight-year term.

I see no reason why we need to change the amount of registration for the House of Assembly at all. Typically, in a House of Assembly contest, you will have four candidates—it is often Liberal, Labor, Greens, Family First; sometimes you will have a couple of Independents in there as well, making it six, and maybe these days you have Palmer or whatever, so there could be seven or thereabouts—but you do not end up with the so-called tablecloth ballot papers in the lower house. So, why would we impose greater costs on potential entrance to the democratic system when there is not a problem to fix in the House of Assembly?

Again, as the Hon. Mark Parnell pointed out, what we could be imposing—I have heard the figure of $5,000, thrown around in some discussions I have been party to. Now with $5,000 across 47 seats, you are talking almost a quarter of a million dollars just for lower house registration if a particular party wants to run in all 47 lower house seats.

This is not self-interest speaking, because in the case of Family First, the party of which I am privileged to be a member, that would not represent a substantial barrier for us—we would find that money, and we would pay the fee—but I can guarantee you that almost every other political party, other than Liberal, Labor, the Greens, Family First and perhaps Palmer these days as well, would find that a very substantial barrier and, for that reason, Family First supports the Hon. Mr  Darley's amendment.

We do have a problem in the upper houses, and we need to fix that issue—I think that there is general agreement on that, and that is why we are here today—but I do not see why we should be imposing artificially high barriers to entry in the House of Assembly where no problems exists, as far as I am aware. Certainly, the number of candidates who stand is modest, and there is no confusion amongst the electorate about what the process is or should be. So, we see no reason for the amount of registration fee to change in the lower house at all, frankly. But in the upper house, we would support a changing of the amounts, and I think that the Hon. Mr Darley's cap is a sensible interim measure towards putting that in place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the Hon. Dennis Hood raises a very good point, and I think it is a point which we, as a committee, need to keep in mind. It would be fair to say that, in the context of this bill and other related bills, members of our joint party room—the Liberal Party caucus, for those who have trouble translating these terms—were constantly asking 'What is the mischief?' The Hon. Dennis Hood is really asking that in relation to whether we have a mischief in the House of Assembly, and I think it is fair to say that we do not. I am not aware of any significant increase in either the House of Assembly or the House of Representatives Independent candidates. Therefore, I think the Hon. Dennis Hood raises a good question: is there any need to increase the nomination fee for the House of Assembly?

In that context I am advised that, within the regulations, it is within the capacity of the executive, as the regulation-making authority, to set a different nomination fee for the House of Assembly to that of the Legislative Council. We suggest to the government that it might consider the comments of the Hon. Dennis Hood, and may well choose to have a differential rate. It might actually encourage people to perhaps nominate for the House of Assembly rather than the Legislative Council, because it might be a cheaper option. I would say that the sort of people who want to make that choice do not deserve to sit in this place.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Honourable members have made some very important points in this discussion. The government is happy to consider those when it comes to setting the regulated fees.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My next amendment is consequential so I will not be proceeding with it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–1]—

Page 2, line 19 [clause 5(1), inserted subparagraph (i)]—Delete '20' and substitute '2'

I would actually like to thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for setting the scene for this amendment. The Hon. Dennis Hood, as I said, highlighted what is a mischief, whether we are making changes in relation to the House of Assembly where there is no problem and, if so, should we stop and reflect. That is exactly what the opposition is suggesting in relation to this amendment.

This amendment seeks to maintain the status quo for the House of Assembly. Currently, you need two electors to nominate you to stand in the House of Assembly. As I said, as far as I know there has not been any perceived problem with an increase in the number of Independents standing for that place, so I have moved this amendment. 'If it ain't broke don't fix it,' and the opposition proposes to keep the number of nominators at two. To use the Hon. Mark Parnell's phrase, we do not need unnecessarily high barriers to entry.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment, obviously. We sought to set enrolment numbers to be consistent with federal legislation. Notwithstanding that these provisions do not prevent mischief, we are seeking to address for our system to at least be no worse than the federal provisions. We believe it is necessary.

As the Hon. Mr Parnell stated in his second reading contribution, we do not expect that this is too onerous. The government believes it is sensible that a candidate be able to demonstrate at least a base level of support as a precondition to seeking election, that being 20 nominators.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As I said earlier, when we are looking at the hurdles that need to be jumped before a person can get on the ballot paper, in our view we do not need an onerous financial hurdle. However, the idea that you need to find at least 20 people who are prepared to endorse you running as a candidate is not terribly onerous.

Antony Green, when he was here talking about electoral reform, identified this as one area which was easy to fix. It seems to me that if a person cannot find 20 people who agree that they are a good candidate, they are unlikely to be able to get a lot of people voting for them, in which case it does bring into question the usefulness of having them on the ballot paper. Notwithstanding that, we live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to put themselves forward. I do not think a hurdle or a barrier of having to find 20 people who agree that you should be a candidate is at all onerous. It does not cost any money; it just requires someone to get 20 signatures.

We will be supporting the bill as it stands and rejecting the opposition's move to keep it at two which, as people have pointed out, means your mum and dad, maybe your brother and sister. It is a very low bar and we think 20 is an appropriate number.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First will be supporting the amendment—that is, keep the number at two rather than increase it to 20 as the bill proposes—supporting the opposition's position. The reason for that is, as I have just outlined, there really is no problem that I am aware of in the House of Assembly elections. The Hon. Mark Parnell makes a good point: 20 is not an onerous number. If people cannot find 20 signatures then you have to wonder about the likelihood of them winning the election.

However, I say that 20 is a tokenistic number, as well. Anyone can find 20, so why bother? Why should it not be two? If you can find 20 very easily, what is the difference? For that reason, I think it just creates an unnecessary administrative burden, albeit a small one, but just red tape for red tape's sake. If it is easy to find 20 then what is the point? It is not a barrier at all so why would we bother inserting it into the bill?

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–4]—

Page 3, line 2 [clause 5(1), inserted paragraph (a)(ii)]—Delete '100' and substitute '250'

This amendment to clause 5 simply increases the number of supporting signatures needed upon nomination for the Legislative Council from 100 to 250. In our view this further legitimises the nomination process. In the absence of broader reform we believe this mechanism is one of a few available for the 2014 election.

Again, honourable members who wish to stand for the Legislative Council, given that they require at least 100 now, should have no difficulties, if they are worthy candidates who have some hope of being elected, being able to find 250. We hope that will ease some of the burden in terms of the tablecloth-sized ballot papers we have seen in other places.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The amendments are querying two versus 100. I think what the minister was referring to was the change from the bill rather than a change from the current act. The opposition supports the point that the government just made. This is one of the few opportunities we have—the phrase I have used—to strengthen this miscellaneous bill prior to March 2014.

As I have indicated, we would want the whole act—I do not want to overstate it—shall we say the whole of the Legislative Council election process to be reviewed after the 2014 election. It may well be that in the context of that review this figure goes back down again. We think it is an appropriate measure in the context.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I want to ask the minister for clarification: if you have a group of two does that mean you need 250 or 500?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that you would need 500 nominations for two.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a point of clarification for the minister also. I think I know the answer to this but if he would not mind putting it on the record. Does this apply to registered political parties already registered? That is, will it apply to all candidates for the Legislative Council in the upcoming election or only those not currently registered?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On my understanding it is clause 53A which applies to single candidates only.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Could I ask the minister for clarification. Does that then mean that something is going to be done to increase the time frame to get these signatures?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think the question was about increasing the time frame for nomination, or the nomination process. My advice is that it is the government's intention that with the reforms to nomination requirements, should they pass, candidates will be fully aware and able to commence the process of collecting material required to nominate from at least mid January and, ideally, even before that. So, once this legislation passes, should it pass, candidates, I imagine, will be activating their networks and making sure—these are single candidates—they have the required number of nominators.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for his response to the Hon. John Darley's question. It gives me the opportunity to reiterate that the Liberal Party's support for the amendment was in the expectation that the forms would be available earlier. We appreciate that the Electoral Commissioner is an independent statutory officer, but I think it is appropriate for the parliament to express a hope and expectation that the documents supporting the electoral process will be available in a timely fashion.

I think it would be realistic to say that any well managed political candidate or party would not want to stop collecting signatures at 500 because the relevant date, I presume, for these 500 people being electors is the close of nominations and if, heaven forbid, a Liberal Party member should die, you would not want to find your candidate not eligible to stand because the form was short. So, I can assure you that our instructions to our party officials would be—we might actually ask for a higher quota than some of the younger parties. For example, d4d might be able to get by with 501, but I can assure you that the Liberal Party forms are likely to have well over 500 people.

Not only might people die, people might move, there might be all sorts of reasons why people who signed the form in December, January or February might not be eligible electors at the time of the close of rolls. To be realistic, and I appreciate that not all members of this council are persuaded by arguments of achievability or whether or not a system might fall over, I think the time frame will be of assistance, not just to potential candidates as they get the signatures for the form but for the Electoral Commission itself.

I am sure that candidates and groups will be encouraged to get their form in as early as possible so that the commissioner can do a check. In fact, I would not be surprised if the process the commissioner establishes has a flag, so that if a person is, for want of a better word, a nominating elector and they become unavailable through death or other circumstances to be a nominating elector then that would be flagged for the commissioner. So, it is important that not only are these measures practical for potential candidates, but that they are practical for administrators.

I join the government in expressing the hope and the expectation that the commissioner might be able to make that form available as early as possible. I think the words the minister used were 'mid-January and earlier if possible', and we would join him in that hope.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We need to put this into context. The current requirement is two—like, one, two, your mum and dad, your brother and your sister. The proposal was to bring it up to 100, which is consistent with the number of signatures required in other jurisdictions. The proposal now is to bring it up to 250. So, from two to 250. If you are running a group, as I understand it, with a ticket of three, that is 750 unique signatures—and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but is not the registration for a political party still 200? So, you need 3½ times more signatures to run a group of three than you do a party of three. It seems that that is over the top.

We wanted to support an increase, but going from two to 100 is a 50-fold increase, but going up to 250 is an order of magnitude greater than that. The Greens say, yes, we want people to be able to show they have some support as part of their eligibility to go on the ballot paper, but it should not be such an onerous task as I think would result from this amendment's passing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I support the amendment in principle, but when the government says, 'We hope it will be January or February,' is that firm? We cannot be expected to get 500 signatures in 72 hours.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I remind honourable members that they are not restricted to finding their nominators and signatures in the time between opening of nominations and close—you can actually start harvesting (I should not use that word) or contacting your networks and lining up people who will nominate you well before that. I am pretty sure most people who intend to take advantage of this provision will be doing that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Honourable members will recall, in the context of what I call 'miscellaneous 1', that we discussed requiring the Electoral Commissioner to distribute applications for postal votes, and we had a discussion in that context as to whether or not it was appropriate to direct the Electoral Commissioner. I reiterate the comments I made earlier: the Electoral Commissioner is an independent statutory officer, and the officer does operate within the framework of the act. If the parliament was concerned that the availability, the time frame, for the nomination was such an acute issue that it wanted to put a duty on the commissioner in the act, then we could consider that amendment.

As I said earlier, the opposition is comfortable with expressing an expectation and a hope to the commissioner. My understanding is that the government is hoping that it might be mid-January, if not earlier. It is not a big task, I would have thought. It is sounding like I am getting a bit like Mark Parnell: we have sent people to the moon, surely we can put out a nomination form out by mid-January. Having said, the opposition believes that it is appropriate for the parliament to express its intention and is not inclined to not make it a statutory declaration to the commissioner.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I formally ask the minister to clarify the difference in numbers required for political parties. Doing a quick online search, I came up with 150. My recollection was that it was 200. My further recollection is that we last debated it in this chamber when the Democrats had dropped below a certain number and a certain former Attorney-General saw his chance to get them deregistered, so I think we originally debated a bill with a 500-member threshold. My recollection is that we ended up settling on 200.

Can the minister, first, confirm how many signatures are needed to register a political party, and that will then put in context the additional number of signatures required to run as a group compared with running as a party.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My recollection is the same as the Hon. Mark Parnell's, but I have another recollection in the same context. My understanding is that one of the reasons the government was attracted to settle at 200 was because at that stage they were in coalition with a National Party member of another place, and they would not have met the 500 threshold.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Honourable members have the benefit of their long-term memory and how we changed these threshold figures in the past. My understanding is that it is 200—the Hon. Mr Parnell is right. The reasons for changing it in the past I will leave him to speculate upon and other people's motivations.

In terms of why we are addressing this issue, I reiterate that our hands are somewhat tied. We have very few options left to try to avoid some of the bad behaviour we saw in the federal election. The government believes, and I think the opposition believes, that this is a prudent move to try to restrict the behaviour of those people who would seek to game the system and harvest preferences. In conjunction with my next amendment, we think we will have some impact on that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: The minister has indicated that we can start collecting signatures now but if this prescribed form is not available it makes it pretty impossible.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the Electoral Commission has indicated that as soon as the bill is passed with the relevant changes made they will be made to the prescribed form and the expectation, we hope, is that it will be available within a fortnight.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a final observation on those numbers that we have been talking about. In relation to this forthcoming election it looks as if the will of the house is for there to be a very high threshold, but if this system was not then further amended after the next election and before the 2018 election, anyone who is considering becoming part of the political process will have a very clear choice: if you only have 200 friends you form a political party; if you have 500 or 750 friends you can form a group of three on the ballot paper.

This seems to be a move to encourage more people to form political parties, and I just make the point that the gaming of the system that everyone is talking about in relation to the last federal senate election is not the exclusive domain of non-parties. You can also game the system by registering yourself as a small or so-called microparty. So I can see that this is perhaps a short-term fix for this election, but the Greens maintain the position that we think 100 is appropriate, but 250 names is excessive.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not want to belabour this discussion too long, Mr Chairman, but the Hon. Mr Parnell simplifies the argument somewhat, because if you were to go down the path of setting up a political party there are other requirements under section 39 that you need to pay attention to such as setting up a constitution which is not a small thing, as he would know, maintaining a membership and keeping it in good order; setting out names and addresses of electors; be accompanied by declarations of membership of the party which is another hurdle. So, it is not as simple as the honourable member has maintained in his discussion.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–4]—

Page 3, lines 9 and 10 [clause 5(2), inserted subsection (3a)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) an elector signs a nomination paper under subsection (3)(a)(ii) for—

(i) a candidate in the group; and

(ii) another candidate in the election (including another candidate in the group),

This relates to grouped Independents. The government is concerned that where there is a reasonable increase in nomination requirements there is a possibility if one group is able to gather together a required number of nominators they may—and there is no restriction on this happening, and we have heard that this has happened elsewhere—that those nominators may nominate multiple groups, and clearly that is not something that we should be contemplating. So this amendment would maintain or require that to nominate a group you need unique nominators.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Darley–2]—

Page 3, lines 15 and 16 [clause 6(1)]—Delete 'the groups endorsed by registered political parties appearing before the groups who are not so endorsed' and substitute 'prescribed groups appearing before all other groups'

For the sake of convenience, I will speak to all three amendments, nos 4, 5 and 6, that I have on file. This set of amendments relates to the government's proposal to amend section 59 of the act which deals with the printing of the Legislative Council ballot paper. Currently, the act provides for the order of groups in the ballot paper to be determined by lot with groups appearing before individual candidates. The government's proposal would result in registered political parties appearing on the ballot paper before those groups who are not so endorsed and the drawing of separate lots for the registered parties, as opposed to other groups.

In short, it is intended to ensure that major political parties receive primacy on the ballot paper ahead of other groups and Independents. The set of amendments that I am proposing will ensure that groups will be afforded the same level of fairness. It does so by proposing that the definition of 'groups' includes not only registered political parties but also any group which has a sitting member of parliament in this state. I am sure all honourable members would have received a letter from the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia indicating its strong opposition to this bill for reasons along similar lines to the concerns that I have raised. The letter reads:

If this bill is passed, voters will not be able to vote for individual candidates above the line, making it much more difficult for those voters who want to support these individuals. The unfairness of having to mark all the squares if voting below the line will, firstly, force individual candidates to group together and, secondly, will force voters to consider voting for such groups rather than individuals. It will be counterproductive to any attempts to reduce the significance of preference harvesting arrangements between such groups, and forcing someone like Nick Xenophon to stand in a group to avoid having to rely on below the line votes is fairly outrageous.

The letter goes on to state:

This bill ensures that registered political parties will get the first positions on the ballot paper and hence will get the favoured positions before Independent groups and, lastly, individual candidates. At the 2010 election it was the independent Climate Sceptics who had first position but under this bill this would not be allowed.

This bill will restrict individuals and small groups to trying to explain their main aim to essentially two words. This restriction will not apply to those parties already registered with up to six words allowed for their names. At least with the previous five words allowed, there was some equality between registered party names and the names of the independent groups. Previously, South Australia had a ballot paper for the upper house that had a degree of fairness to all candidates. This bill removes this fairness.

The concerns raised by the Electoral Reform Society are very valid indeed. Why is it that the government is trying to remove the option of voting above the line for those voters who want to vote for an individual candidate? Why is it that the government is attempting to give favoured positions only to registered parties? Why is it that the government is attempting to restrict what individuals and small groups can call themselves? I think we all know the answer to these questions.

There is certainly no doubt in my mind that these reforms have very little to do with eliminating preference harvesting arrangements and everything to do with the government trying to secure as many seats as possible under the guise of genuine electoral reform. This is the same government that has openly supported the abolition of the upper house. I urge all honourable members to give careful consideration to this amendment and, indeed, all of my amendments.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes amendments 4, 5 and 6 in the name of Hon. Mr Darley. It is the government's view that the order of parties and groups and candidates on a ballot paper should be consistent at each election. This will minimise elector confusion associated with the current random placement of parties and non-party groups, making it easier for the electorate to locate the preferred candidates.

The distinction should be based on registration, which is currently a distinguishing feature in the act. With registration comes a level of legitimacy. A party with a sitting member has the option of registering as a party pursuant to section 39 of Electoral Act. Legislation should make this process as easy for electors as possible. This amendment seeks to do just that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition considers that the Hon. John Darley raises some very valid points and I think it would be fair to say that the parliamentary system is developing in a much more sophisticated way. The Clerk, I am sure, can correct me but I think there were decades in the middle of the last century when this house only had representatives of the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal and Country League. It would be fair to say that, increasingly, since the 1970s and 1980s, with the advent of proportional representation, this place has been blessed with quite a diverse range of Independents and groups. Certainly, there is a growing sophistication, and there is a number of candidates who do not want to associate with a party yet they may choose to associate with each other. There are discussions in the media at the moment about different ways, if you like, that members can associate.

These are not simple issues. How the Electoral Act might need to be updated to make sure that it is fair to all participants, no matter what form of political organisation they choose to adopt, are complex issues. The opposition is not attracted to reform on the run and in this context will be supporting the government in opposing amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 from the Hon. Mr Darley. I must admit I thought that amendment No. 7 was of the same cluster. He might correct me if I am wrong, but we are intending to oppose amendment No. 7 because we also see it as a related amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Could I move that my first amendment be recommitted?

The CHAIR: No yet, sir. You have a number of amendments still to clause 6: No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7. You indicated that that was going to be a test.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: That is right; they are all consequential.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I apologise, Mr Chair. We are just going to get it.

The CHAIR: [Darley-2] amendment No. 8?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes; we are just getting it.

The CHAIR: Minister, in the meantime would you like to move yours?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, I will. It is related to the Hon. Mr Darley's, of course, so I will explain. I move:

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–4]—

Page 3, lines 22 to 25—Delete clause 7 and substitute:

7—Amendment of section 62—Printing of descriptive information on ballot papers

Section 62(1)(d)—delete '5 additional words' and substitute:

2 additional words (or 3 additional words if 1 of those words is 'group')

It is an alternative amendment to the Hon. Mr Darley's. We do not support his, but in the spirit of compromise we are putting up this amendment. I will just explain.

The government's position is that two words is sufficient as a descriptor. These descriptions on the ballot paper often confuse voters, and the government believes streamlining the words to two will have a positive impact. Other states do not even permit anything more than the name of the candidate being on the ballot paper. We therefore will oppose Mr Darley's amendment, but in the spirit of compromise move my amendment, which allows for two words, which is our original position, but will allow for three if one of those three words is the word 'group'.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Darley–2]—

Page 3, line 25—Delete '2' and substitute '3'

Section 62(1)(d) of the act currently provides that a candidate may have a description consisting of the word 'Independent' followed by not more than five additional words printed adjacent to their name on the ballot paper for use in election. The government bill proposes to limit the use of additional words to two, rather than five. My amendment seeks to find a middle ground, if you like, by altering that number to three. As members would know, prior to this bill even being introduced I made it publicly known that I would be running at the next state election and that I would be doing so as part of a group, so it is fair to say that the government's proposal has the potential to directly impact me. I make no secret of that.

I must say, however, that I was quite surprised to read yesterday's InDaily article entitled 'Sitting MPs shut gate on lesser known candidates'. That suggested that the bill before us had the agreement of members of the Legislative Council and that a deal had been agreed to add 2.5 per cent minimum vote threshold qualification to the existing bill. Let me make it clear for the record that I have not been involved in any discussions regarding a 2.5 per cent minimum vote threshold qualification, nor have I suggested at any time that I agree with what the government has proposed under its original bill. I do not support a 2.5 per cent minimum vote threshold qualification and any suggestion otherwise is completely wrong.

In my view, the use of a threshold in the way that it is being proposed is fundamentally undemocratic. It disenfranchises voters who choose to vote for minor parties and it disenfranchises voters who make a conscious decision to vote below the line. Once again, I maintain my position that the most sensible way of dealing with the concerns that have been raised about micro parties and preference deals is by implementing an optional preferential voting model.

The government has chosen to ignore my pleas and place optional preferential voting in the too-hard basket. That should come as no surprise I guess, but to suggest, as the government has done, that their bill addresses the capacity that currently exists to manipulate the system through preference deals is total utter rubbish. What they have done is to garner support for a bill which clearly provides major parties with an advantage over all other candidates, whether they be Independents or minor groups. It is about major party dominance.

This amendment will not rectify that problem, but, to some extent, it will address the issue of the government trying to shift the goalposts just 3½ months out from an election after the close of party registrations.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade on the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was hoping to address both because I see them as alternatives. In relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's comments about deals and bills to stamp out diversity, if I could run those themes together I think it would be fair to say that there have been widespread discussions amongst members of this place about a range of options, and thresholds is one of them. I accept the Hon. John Darley's statement that he was not part of a deal in relation to the 2.5 per cent, but I think it would be fair to say that there have been substantial discussions around this place.

I do acknowledge that my comments in my second reading contribution suggested that it was my understanding that the government has fully briefed the crossbench members on the bill. Let us just say that a member of the crossbench indicated that they had not received a briefing on this bill, so I correct the record in that regard. If Mr Darley was suggesting that somehow the major parties had gone into a dark room, done a deal and imposed it on the parliament in the form of this bill, we do not agree with that. The Liberal Party would believe that is an inappropriate characterisation of the development of the bill and I would argue that the Liberal Party in its participation in any discussions on agreed words with the government has been sincere and consistent in trying to protect diversity.

Moving on to the specific issues raised by the amendments, as I said in my second reading contribution, I would not overstate the importance of two versus three words. We, as a Liberal Party, do not want ballot papers to be misused as another form of pamphlet; in other words, that people are putting their campaign messages on the ballot paper, rather than doing the hard yards of doing the campaigning outside the booth, which is where it should be done. We are attracted to trimming it to try to reduce the temptation for that message approach. Having accepted the need for trimming, where do you draw the line? We are inclined to three. What the two amendments before us pose is: should there be a requirement that one of those words be the word 'group'?

The Hon. John Darley's comments about political parties and where groups and political parties should be located on the ballot paper raise the issue in terms of how candidates would like to characterise themselves and their associations with other candidates. One does think, 'Would somebody not feel comfortable with the word 'group'?', and it may well be the case that they are not. There are some candidates where the association with the other candidates would be looser; for example, they might prefer to call themselves a network or an alliance or what have you, which has dredged my memory in relation to a political group that is active in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, called the Movement for Christian Democracy.

That group was initially established as a network of like-minded Christians but, from time to time, they have, as I understand it, put forward parliamentary candidates. If they did that in Australia, they would have to drop one of the words, obviously—they would have to drop 'Movement', 'Christian' or 'Democracy'. Are we going to get them to call themselves the Christian Democracy Group? We have to force them to drop a word; we would probably get them to drop four. I imagine they would call themselves the Christian Democracy Movement. I think it would be quite inappropriate to stick the word 'group' on them; it might be quite misleading.

We think that it is appropriate to reduce the number of words that are used as descriptors, but we do not see that it is good practice to prescribe what those words might be—next we will have the government writing each of our descriptors for us leading up to the election. For those who have trouble understanding my logic, the opposition is inclined to support the amendment being put forward by the Hon. John Darley.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not sure whether the Hon. Mr Darley was listening when I moved my amendments, so I will recap very briefly. What the government amendment seeks to do is to keep the descriptor at two words, or three words if one of the three words is 'group'. For instance, if the Hon. Mr Darley wants to describe himself on his ballot paper (and we are referring only to the ballot papers, not the other material a political party uses at election time to describe its position), it could be the John Darley Group, and that would be sufficient and qualify under my amendment.

To answer the question the Hon. Mr Wade raised about some groups from Europe transplanting themselves over here and wanting to run, they have two options, really: they can either register as a political party and then use their party name or their party abbreviation, which is probably what they would think about doing. The word 'group' relates, naturally, to the word 'group' that is in the legislation because it applies to group voting—group voting tickets, groups above the line. That is the language we use, and that is why the word 'group', I suggest, should be part of the two-word extension to three.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I would like to ask a question before I put the Greens' position on the record. One thing that has changed over time is the English language and the way it is used, especially now that we have electronic forms of communication. We are used to seeing words put together without spaces—perhaps they might have a full stop or a dot between them—and I am thinking that at the last election there was a group that ran on an animal welfare ticket using the name 'SaveBabe.com'. My question of the minister is: how many words are used up with the phrase 'SaveBabe.com'? For those who do not recall, Babe was the pig in the film—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Spoiler alert: I will not give you the end of the film. How many words are used up with the phrase 'SaveBabe.com'?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You do not even need to go to savebabe.com. GetUp! is a political organisation that has a composite word. I suggest that the Hon. Mark Parnell raises an interesting point.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank my adviser for saving my bacon on this one. I understand that this is an interpretative matter, and that is how it will be determined, I suppose, by the Electoral Commissioner when considering this matter. I expect that the words would be given their ordinary meaning but, ultimately, that would be a matter that could be determined by a court, I suppose, if it were to go down that track. However, I think it would be left in the hands of the commissioner, and I think most people would respect her judgement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens' position is that we have considered all the different options around the five words, and I just remind people that Antony Green did identify the five words as being one of the areas of reform that was fairly easy to undertake. We have looked at all options, from the status quo to removing any words other than the name of the candidate. Ultimately, we have settled on the position—

An honourable member: Two and a half.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Not 2½ words, as—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The interjections are completely out of order. Ultimately, the Greens have settled on the amendment as proposed by the Hon. John Darley, and that is that we are happy to go with the three words. The Hon. Stephen Wade makes the point that 'group' might not be the chosen collective word people might want to use, but I again make the point that we are absolutely tinkering with the system. We are not looking at the wholesale reform that I think all members have said is required, that is, to look at why groups at all, the relationship between groups and parties, the fact that you can put names other than your own as part of the name of your group.

These are all issues that will need to be dealt with later, but for now I think the fairest thing is that if there is going to be a reduction from five we will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's amendment, going to three words. We therefore reject the government amendment, which provides that you can only have three words if one of them is 'group', otherwise you have two words. We think the Hon. John Darley's amendment is preferable.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I do not necessarily see this as an either/or contest. We have two amendments before us and I think there is merit in both amendments, and Family First's inclination is to support both of them.

I think one of the things that needs to be stated in this debate that is very significant is that by allowing, as we currently do (and it seems that will change today), five words on a ballot paper, that is effectively free advertising. You might have the Free Beer and Wine Party, for example, which, just by nominating, has its group name or party name, whatever it may be, with their slogan on a ballot paper distributed to over one million voters around South Australia—basically at no cost to them.

We need to be aware that that is part of the system we have developed over the years, and I think that is one of the core reasons that the system has been exploited in the way it has. It is sensible to reduce the number of words on the ballot paper so that the words used become a description or an identifier, rather than an advertising opportunity. Family First's view is that both amendments have merit, and for that reason Family First supports both of them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I seek some clarification from the government on why it has landed on 'group' and how that takes into account quite legitimate groups who have run in the past, such as Ban Live Export. That is a well-known campaign name that is a clear policy goal, and it is a quite legitimate group to be running in a state election. Under the government amendments, where the three words could only be used if they included the word 'group', Ban Live Export would not be able to promote what its cause was to the South Australian public, yet a group that was pro-live export would be able to because they could run as the Live Export Group.

Has the government considered that it might be ruling out the democratic ability of quite legitimate groups in this state who have run previously to run in the future, or had it simply considered the Nick Xenophon group in its considerations of this particular amendment?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government's position is that we would have preferred two words alone. The Hon. Mr Darley said that he was after the middle ground. If you like, we tried to find the middle-middle ground. I understand that the Hon. Mr Wade's and the Hon. Mr Hood's arguments about the description on the ballot paper is completely different from how parties, groups and organisations campaign outside of that—that is up to them and they have the freedom to do that. We are concerned also that the space on the ballot paper is being misused as a billboard, if you like, to re-run a campaign, and that is not what we think should be happening.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Very briefly, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, we will be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, and without the government's amendment to that amendment. So, yes, Mr Darley; no, government—just for the sake of clarity because we are all very tired.

The Hon. J.A. Darley's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Members would have seen my amendment filed earlier this week and I just want to give a little bit of background to this amendment before I withdraw it. I will not be proceeding with it, as I have mentioned to members in corridor chats. This amendment came out of a discussion between a number of the parties represented in this place. We have to remember that the whole reason we are dealing with this bill in the first place was the so-called gaming of the system in the Senate, as most of us have mentioned today, so I will not go over that again.

In essence we had people getting elected to six-year terms in the national parliament of Australia on very small votes. How do you deal with that? When the public does not want that, what do you do to fix the problem—so-called? There is a variety of options which we have seen. There is OPV, which has been presented, there is Sainte-Laguë, etc. However, one very simple way of fixing it is to put in a threshold below which—whatever the number is—an individual, regardless of whether they are with a party, a group or they are acting as an individual candidate, cannot be elected.

That number may be half a per cent; it may be 5 per cent or it may be, as this amendment says, 2.5 per cent. How that 2.5 per cent came about was a negotiation between the other parties. My preference was for a lower number, a much lower number. There was significant feeling that it should be much higher than where it has ended up and, after a series of negotiations, it ended up at 2.5 per cent.

However, I want to be absolutely clear about the way this would have worked because I think there is a misunderstanding in this place about the effect of this amendment. What it would have meant was that any party, group or individual that got below 2.5 per cent of the primary vote in the Legislative Council would have had their votes distributed. Their votes would have been distributed—I am not talking about a system where votes exhaust—according to the preferences that they allocated on their group voting ticket. Exactly what we do now, except a requirement of at least 2.5 per cent primary vote to be elected. That was what I was proposing.

This was, again, in negotiation with a number of the parties in this place. It does not need to be disclosed necessarily who that is; they may choose to do that and it is up to them. However, we had broad agreement, I think it is fair to say. As I said, I will not be proceeding with this amendment because during the consultation we had yesterday (that the Hon. Mr Parnell mentioned), I think basically every group or party in this room had at least a representative of their party or group, with the Electoral Commissioner, over lunch, hosted by the Deputy Premier—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Lunch break, I beg your pardon, yes; I did not get lunch yesterday. She told us that there were very substantial problems with the software and introducing this system. Frankly, it is hard to understand how it could be so difficult, nonetheless I think we need to listen to somebody in that position, and that is why we should not be rushing to introduce an optional preferential voting system either. She felt that, as with optional preferential voting, the 2.5 per cent threshold was impossible to be implemented in the time available, and I am happy to take her advice. I think it would be arrogant of me, frankly, to reject her advice. So, on that basis I withdraw the amendment.

The CHAIR: As the Hon. Mr Hood advises that he is not proceeding with that amendment, the Hon. Mr Wade, I thought you had something at clause 9?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to pose questions that were posed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, the member for Bragg, and the government might forgive me if it has provided the answer—I am not aware of it. I think it would also be of benefit to the council as a whole to be informed of that advice in any event.

Section 139(2) of the Electoral Act currently allows for regulations to fix fines of up to $750 for the contravention of a regulation. The bill proposes to increase this to $5,000. My questions are: how many fines are currently prescribed by regulation under this power? If there are none, why is it necessary for this fine-making capacity to be increased from $750 to $5,000? Why are the regulation-making powers being made more specific than under the current section 139 of the act? Is it anticipated that this will provide any further regulation-making capacity than what is currently available? Lastly, what matters are intended to be included in subsection (2)(e) of the proposed section 139 and what would the commissioner's discretion relate to?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I was just conferring with my adviser to confirm that in fact I have addressed the issues raised by the Hon. Mr Wade in my second reading closing speech. Just to reiterate very briefly, we are talking about regulations, the making of regulations, and clause 9. Essentially, this provision has already been passed by the parliament in the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill 2013 and would commence, but for the current bill before the house, in July 2014.

I am advised that it is standard regulation-making powers used to provide flexibility in relation to the subdelegation of certain uncontroversial administrative decisions. In relation to subsection (2)(e), which I think the honourable member was interested in, I confirm and again I reiterate what I said in my closing speech, that at this stage there are no matters intended to be included in subsection (2)(e). The decision was made to commence the provision earlier, attaching it to this bill, in light of the intention to increase the nomination fee for single candidates. The flexibility provided by these regulation-making powers allows this change in the regulations to occur by virtue of subsections (c) and (d).

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Supplementary to the questions offered, is it the government's intention that any new offences be added to the regulations pursuant to the bill that is before us?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is no.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I ask the government to give an undertaking that regulations that are developed pursuant to this legislation will be consulted with other parliamentary groups before they are promulgated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is yes.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (12:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.