Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Electoral (Legislative Council Voting Thresholds) Amendment Bill Electoral (Legislative Council Voting Thresholds) Amendment Bill Electoral (Legislative Council Voting Thresholds) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:34): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce a bill to amend the way in which members are elected to this place, specifically the Legislative Council. There can be no doubt that sophisticated preferencing strategies that we have seen used both at a state and federal level, employed by parties and candidates, and individuals in some cases, in both federal and state elections have, at times, left the voters dismayed and confused with the end result. One might call it clever referencing but certainly very elaborate referencing arrangements have led to very small groups, either individuals or what we might call micro parties at the federal level in the most recent federal election to be elected at the expense of the larger and better-known groups. By way of an example—and I cast no aspersions on the senator—Senator Ricky Muir is of course perhaps the most famous case where the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party was elected to the Senate and received a primary vote of just 0.51 of 1 per cent. However, due to the cleverly negotiated preference deals by a group of people that he was associated with, he secured a seat in the Senate on that very low level of vote. The 'Federal Election 2013: issues, dynamics, outcomes' paper by Brenton Holmes stated: The controversial success in the Senate election of this Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party and the Australian Sports Party—parties guided and advised by Druery— the so-called preference whisperer— brought both praise and blame to Druery's door. ABC election analyst Antony Green said that the series of deals Druery advocated made a joke of Australia's democratic system, while Druery insisted that his actions did not distort the political process. Similarly, there are examples of independent and minor party candidates in local and state elections due to cleverly crafted preference deals that I believe, at least to some extent, are against the spirit of what the law had originally intended. To some extent the swing towards Independents from the better-known parties is not an uncommon trend the world over and we pass no aspersions on that. It has been reported that Australia is now only starting to mimic the established trend of other countries towards voting for Independents and one may suggest that it is due to dissatisfaction with the major parties that has brought about this change in voting practices. Much has been said about our election process in this chamber, as well as in the media. It is clear that the Australian public and more recently the South Australian public have called into question the effectiveness of our electoral system and the potential for parties to be, dare I say it, undemocratically elected. In any event, discouraging small groups from running in an election is not what we are about. We encourage individuals, whether they be Independents or members of so-called micro parties, minor parties or even major parties to run. However, we do not want to see a system which allows strategic preference deals taking place over primary votes in all cases. We believe that a group should have at least a reasonable level of support. From a Family First perspective that is simply not a good outcome; it is an outcome that people would not generally condone or accept. There appears to be an attitude of reform when it comes to the election process. Certainly in the media at a federal level there has been a great deal of talk about this. Family First believes that creating a fair and democratic system is what is most necessary for voter confidence and the wellbeing of the electoral process. Today I pose a very simple yet effective way of establishing and preserving voter confidence in our electoral system. The bill that I present to the chamber today creates a minimum threshold of 2.5 per cent. I might add, at this point, that I am not wedded to the 2.5 per cent figure; it is merely a figure that we seemed to gain some agreement on in this chamber prior to the last election. I would be perfectly comfortable if it was 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent but 2.5 per cent seems to be a reasonable level. One of the reasons that we decided on that figure in the end was because Senator Xenophon was originally elected on 2.86 per cent, I think it was. That would not preclude somebody like that being elected at some future point. The figure I have chosen at this point is 2.5 per cent. I am certainly happy for that to be debated and moved up or down. The bottom line is that if somebody achieves below that threshold of primary vote they simply cannot be elected. Preferences cannot be used to bolster numbers and push candidates over the threshold if they achieve less than that number of votes, or percentage of votes of 2.5 per cent. Only primary votes will count. If an individual achieves over 2.5 per cent of the primary vote then they qualify to be elected should the preferences allow that to occur. For the party, the group or individual that cannot meet this threshold, it is simple: they cannot be elected to this place. Thresholds have been used for some time in other locations, stipulating that a party must receive a minimum percentage of votes, either at a national, state or district level, in order to gain a seat in parliament. Germany, by way of example, has a threshold of 5 per cent, as does New Zealand; Sweden has 4 per cent and Israel has a 2 per cent threshold, so what we are proposing here is nothing new and certainly not extreme. What we are proposing is at the mid range of the overseas comparisons and we think that that is a reasonable level. However, as I said, we are perfectly happy for it to be 2 per cent, 3 per cent or perhaps even 4 per cent. It is certainly an achievable quota for a group that has a reasonable level of support, and we believe it therefore reflects the public's will. Family First believes this simple change will prevent the harvesting of preferences of the very, very small groups, parties or individuals in order to pervert the outcome of any election. This change is simple to understand for the public, and I think that is one of the real advantages of it; the public will understand it simply. They may not understand some other models that have been proposed as easily. This change is easy to effect and it is more reflective of the intentions of the voters on any given election. Furthermore, I think it would have very strong widespread support throughout the electorate for such change. As I said, I think this is something that is very easy for people to understand. The actual number I think we can debate. As I said, I am not wedded to 2.5 per cent; it may be 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or something of that order. We would support something in that order, and I think this bill deserves consideration by this place. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.