Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like to speak briefly on clause 1, and I thank my colleagues in the Legislative Council for their concurrence. This is a simple bill which established a non-partisan parliamentary standing committee, which can inquire into and report on matters relating to electoral laws and practices. It consists of eight committee members in total, four members of each house consisting of one Labor, one Liberal and at least one member that does not belong to Labor or Liberal, and a minister of the crown is able to be appointed.

I do have some problems with putting a minister of the Crown on the committee. I have never liked having ministers on standing committees. I have always felt with the Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee that it was not in the best interests of our Aboriginal community in Australia that a minister was chairing that committee, so I have a question mark over that and would like the government to answer at some point in committee why it wants to leave open an option for having a minister of the Crown on the committee. As far as the functions of the electoral committee go they are:

to inquire into, consider and report on:

the conduct of parliamentary elections and referendums in South Australia;

the administration and operation of, and practices associated with, the Electoral Act 1985, and any other law relating to electoral matters;

any other matter referred to the Committee by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Electoral Act 1985, and

to perform other functions assigned to the committee under this or any other act by resolution of either the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council.

They are quite admirable functions, and in one way you could say that we should have had a committee like this up and running way back when we actually changed the act. A former leader, now sadly passed away, a very committed South Australian and leader of the opposition, the Hon. Dale Baker, someone I had the privilege of working with for several years as a colleague, did everything he possibly could to get an Electoral Act that was fair and democratic whereby, where 50 plus 1 per cent of the people voted for one particular party, two-party preferred, then they would form government.

We now see that we are debating clause 1 of this bill, not because the government wanted this to happen but because (and I stand to be corrected and the shadow attorney-general may confirm this) of an agreement signed by now minister Geoff Brock as one of the conditions he wanted (and the shadow Attorney-General confirms that I am correct), so it was not the government that wanted this.

It was part of an arrangement with the government to form government, but I understood that that focus was to be more on things like so-called truth in advertising, brochures and dodgy how-to-vote cards, where this government actually had minister Bignell's partner actually dress up in a Family First T-shirt and move around at least two booths in Mawson impersonating a Family First volunteer and handing out dodgy how-to-vote cards.

From that point of view, those things should never happen. It is a disgrace. Minister Bignell should have apologised at the time but he is too arrogant to do that and he has his reward now for supporting the Premier. But that does not mean that we should not have that sort of assessment within the committee so that it never happens again.

What worries me with this, and I understand the Opposition is advocating this in another form, is that we should have an absolutely independent inquiry and this bill at this point in time does not allow that, and therefore there is a question mark over whether we can actually finally vote for this bill. I also put on the public record that the majority of the Legislative Council supported a select committee into the last election which we have commenced and are now working through, and I would want the government to make some commitment that they are going to seriously consider any recommendations that might come out of that committee as well.

It is not a one way street; it is actually a two-way street, and it is time that we had everything open and transparent when it comes to assessing, well before the next election, just how you are going to get what the South Australian community wants; that is, if they vote for an absolute majority, that is 50 plus one per cent of them, the absolute majority vote for a new government, then that should occur.

So with those remarks, on the general issue of whether or not we have an ongoing parliamentary standing committee, we do not have a problem with that. We would support that in principle, but we would want answers from the government as to what it is going to do about an absolutely independent inquiry, as called for by the Leader of the Opposition, with fair reason for calling that way. I would also like an answer from the government on its commitment to carefully look at the recommendations, and implement those where possible, from the select committee that is looking into the 2014 election.

The PRESIDENT: Are there any further contributions?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Unless the government wants to respond to Mr Brokenshire's remarks, I was intending to reiterate the Opposition's view that this bill should not progress until the House of Assembly has had the chance to consider the Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform bill. I respect the fact that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked for undertakings from the government, and the government may well have a view on how best to progress the two bills where, as I indicated in my second reading speech, I would be keen for a dialogue to progress both matters.

The PRESIDENT: It is my understanding that we are reporting progress.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government has no intention of progressing the committee stage at this stage. We received a request the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to put a point of view on record at this stage. We agreed to that request. We have no intention of proceeding any further.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.