Electoral Reform

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:54): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of Government Business in this council a question regarding electoral reform.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: A few days ago the Premier came out and made an announcement that he was interested in looking at reform in the Legislative Council. I understand he talked about a reduction in the number of legislative councillors and a change in a longstanding practice, well conceived and in the interests of democracy, namely, that there be longer terms in the upper house to ensure continuity, experience and sustainability of the parliament and democracy, particularly when you get a huge change in government in the House of Assembly.

I note also that I take this very seriously because I don't even see the process as being democratic so far. I know the government wants to continue its dictatorship, but we got rid of dictatorships in World War II and we have to maintain our democracy. I note with interest that the government does have a democratic process to look at the issues around reform of the parliament, known as the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill No. 27. My questions to the minister are:

1. Are the Premier's statements agreed to by the Leader of Government Business in this council and has this gone through the caucus?

2. If there is to be reform in the parliament and the government why would the government not look at a reduction in the number of ministers, as they have a bloated executive of government right now?

3. Why would the government not look at electoral reform in the lower house, where I could argue that there is a strong argument for a reduction in the members' numbers based on metropolitan Adelaide?

4. Why would the Premier and the government not be looking at electoral reform and parliamentary reform that made this parliament and its standing committees more efficient and effective for the people of South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. I think we have as much chance of having a dictatorship in this state as we have of increasing our term to 16 years. However, I do very much support the Premier in his considerations. I believe that it is timely to consider whether further reform is needed in the Legislative Council. I also share the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's point of view, and it is my personal point of view, that if we are going to have a look at the upper house, why wouldn't we have a look at reforms to the lower house as well?

As I said, I support the Premier. I think it is timely. I know the issue of the length of term of office in the upper house elicits strong public views, and not unanimous. I know that when the Hon. Peter Lewis conducted his constitutional convention (I think it was), I have just forgotten the name of it now, one of the things that he determined from focus groups, workshops and things that he ran, was that there was overwhelming support to reduce the length of the term of office of the upper house.

Like all things, the electoral system is a very finely balanced thing and one has to be careful what one asks for, because it is all very carefully balanced and the pieces are all carefully interlinked. As soon as you shift and move one component of it it impacts on others. For instance, many South Australians might think that they would like to reduce the term of office from eight years to four years, but when you point out that it has a significant impact on reducing the quota so that even smaller parties that are less representative have a greater chance of being elected they often baulk at that and say, 'No, we don't want to do that. We wouldn't want that to happen.'

It is a very complex thing. Rightly, the Premier, Jay Weatherill, has indicated that there will be an extensive engagement period and consultation period. Mr Robert Brokenshire and, for that matter, all his constituents, who are my constituents as well, will have an opportunity to have their say, as it should be.