Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) (Voter Choice) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 December 2016.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:07): I rise on behalf of Liberal members in this chamber to put the Liberal Party views on the record in relation to this particular bill. I note, and I will refer in my contribution to the very concise and pithy contributions made by other members, the Hon. Mr Darley, the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr Hood, who put their views clearly in relation to this particular piece of legislation. They are views, I might say, that the Liberal Party, by and large, shares.

Can I just trace briefly for members the recent history of this—the recent history, rather than the long-term history. I think there has been a shared view for some time in the South Australian parliament, in the national parliament, and I suspect in some other state jurisdictions as well, that there has been a need to stop what has been referred to as the excessive use of preference harvesting and the proliferation of what might be referred to as microparties in upper houses around the nation.

The Liberal Party's view has been that we do not support a position which, in essence, seeks to wipe out all minor or third party representation in the upper houses of parliament. I might say that there are some within the state parliament, I will not name the individuals, who do have that particular view, and various options at various times have been put to me, and to others, concerning voting systems which would effectively wipe out all minor party or third party representation if those particular models were to be adopted.

I can say that my view—and I am pleased to say the majority view in the Liberal Party—has been, on all occasions when those options have been raised, to reject any suggestion that we should seek to, in essence, construct a system in the state upper house which essentially only allows major party representation and does not allow any third party or minor party representation.

The brutal reality of electoral politics is that, since 1979 in South Australia, under Liberal and Labor governments, there has been a balance of power position in the Legislative Council. It has varied from, in the original days, a single or sole member who held the balance of power between Labor and Liberal, to its maximum, where I think there were eight members at one particular time.

It is fair to say that it has increased significantly in my time in the Legislative Council and in the parliament, but, nevertheless, whether it is one, eight, five or six, the reality is that neither party (or no government) has had the capacity to ram through legislation in both houses of parliament without the safety net or the safety valve of the Legislative Council in South Australia.

I think that if it was ever put to a referendum (and I do not think it ever will be) there would be passionate support for the continuation of the Legislative Council in the first instance, and I suspect passionate support from the South Australian community for the notion that the Legislative Council should remain a safety net or a safety valve against the excesses of government, whether it be Liberal or Labor, in the House of Assembly or in the parliament generally.

As I said, I do not expect that will need to be tested by way of referendum, but there have been suggestions over the years, as members would know, that perhaps there be changes that be tested by way of referenda in relation to either radically changing the powers of the Legislative Council or, in essence, its very existence, as to whether or not it should continue to exist.

In relation to the voting system, the reality is that there has been, for more than three decades now, a balance of power situation, and by and large good governments, and in particular premiers and ministers who are prepared to respect the views of minor parties and Independents, even though they might not agree with them and even though there might be vigorous disagreement on occasion, but nevertheless are prepared to approach the situation with respect for the views of others and the views that those minor parties and third parties express on behalf of the constituencies that they represent. Governments by and large can get the majority or the bulk of their program through both houses of parliament.

There will be examples where it does not occur. There have been examples where, only through diligence, hard work and ultimately being able to convince members of an opposition party to cross the floor, that major issues, such as the establishment of the uranium mine at Roxby Downs, for example, or the repayment of state debt through the privatisation of our electricity assets, ultimately members (in this case members of the Labor Party) felt so strongly about a particular issue that they took decisions in the public interest, were expelled from their party, but nevertheless supported bills that the government of the day was pushing through the parliament.

I have put the figures on the public record on a number of occasions, and I will not do so again, but the percentage of bills that actually have been defeated over the last 20 years or so is a very small percentage—I think it was 1 or 2 per cent of bills defeated. Yes, a number are significantly amended. Yes, a number are amended to a lesser degree, but the reality is that governments, even in this chamber, often move to amend their own legislation because they have had the time to reflect and listen to the views that have been expressed and eventually accept the fact that their drafting has been imperfect and therefore require their own amendments. In many cases, they have been prepared to compromise and accept amendments.

I come back to the point that, if governments, ministers and premiers are prepared to treat members of this chamber, in particular minor party and third-party representatives, with respect, are prepared to listen and debate the particular issues, even if they disagree eventually vigorously, by and large they will be able to get the majority of their program through both houses of parliament.

As a result of this sort of pressure point, we have seen, since around about 2013, this rush of various ideas in terms of: how do we stop preference harvesting and how do we stop the microparties from proliferating in upper houses? We have had three broad versions of proposals. We have had the threshold proposal, which the Hon. Mr Hood referred to in his contribution. I think there might even still be a bill before the parliament, but there was certainly one prior to 2014.

We have had the bizarre concept that the Labor Party pushed for a period of time, the Sainte-Laguë method, which came from nowhere, completely foreign to our way of life, the political way of life in South Australia and indeed in Australia, but imported from the deepest channels of Europe. There was an attempt to transplant Sainte-Laguë into our system. There was very strong opposition from everyone other than government members to that particular proposal, and that remains the case now from minor parties, Independents and the Liberal Party in relation to Sainte-Laguë, but the government still continues, in the corridors, to try to prosecute and push the case that that is a model to go down.

It is completely foreign to what we do, but I think one of the most objectionable features of the Sainte-Laguë model is that it completely takes away the choice of voters to be able to vote for or against individual members of the Legislative Council. It would be a tragedy indeed for the many ministerial staffers of the Labor Party who proudly tweeted photos of putting Rob Lucas number 63 on the Legislative Council voting ticket at the last election. I would hate to have deprived Labor ministers' staff of the pleasure of being able to photograph their vote, where they were able to put Rob Lucas number 63 on the Legislative Council voting ticket.

As tongue in cheek as that particular comment was, it nevertheless makes the point that individuals should be able to put Rob Lucas number 63 if they so wish, and if the faction bosses and the leaders of the Labor Party decide to put the Hon. Russell Wortley or the Hon. Kyam Maher number 1 rather than the Hon. Tung Ngo, they should be able to express their view. They should be able to express their view that they would prefer 'Ngo 1', or the Hon. Tung Ngo at number 1, as opposed to the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: There were posters all over the city last time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Indeed, there were posters all over the city last time. We saw them up and down Unley Road and Port Road—everywhere—and a very handsome man he was too. That is a right, and I think a fundamental right, that people should have, to be able to express a view about individuals and not just accept the wishes of faction bosses and leaders, whether they be in the Labor Party or the Liberal Party or, frankly, even in the Greens. If someone wants to express a view for—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Trust me, there are factions in the Greens. There is about to be an election at the moment for the next ticket. It is about to get willing, I suspect. Anyway, put that to the side. There are fundamental issues in relation to Sainte-Laguë and as I said, without going through all the detail, there was very strong opposition and there continues to be strong opposition to that.

In relation to optional preferential voting, we saw a couple of bills from the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mr Parnell prior to 2014. There are any number of variations of optional preferential voting that one can have a look at. What we can say about optional preferential is that every person in this chamber—Labor, Liberal, Nick Xenophon Team, Family First, Greens and Dignity Party—have all at some stage or another either voted for, supported or proposed support for optional preferential voting. As other members have already contributed, there would appear to be the grounds for a coming together of the mind.

The point that I have made, in particular to the Attorney-General, over nearly 12 months is—and I completely agree with the view of the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr Hood—let's not do as we did prior to 2014 and leave this to the last weeks of the year. In 2014, the Liberal Party position was that we were prepared to have a look at some version of optional preferential, but we needed time. The Electoral Commissioner said to us, 'We don't have time, as a commission, to actually implement a threshold model'—which was the Hon. Mr Hood's bill—'or some version of optional preferential.' The Liberal Party still wanted to work our way through the debates about optional preferential voting.

I have been saying to the Attorney-General for nearly three years, 'Let's not leave it.' I have been saying it for the last 12 months in particular, 'Let's not leave it.' We now have the latest version, to which I will address some comments, which is at least a version of optional preferential (but it is not really) in the Legislative Council. Privately, they are still romantically flirting with the idea of whether they can get the support for Sainte-Laguë.

This week, a majority of members in this chamber have indicated quite clearly, 'Look, let's get over the various models of the past and the one that you are currently proposing. There is a way forward if people are prepared to sit down and work together to see whether we can come to some form of agreement with some version of optional preferential voting. But, it is not the version which sits before us at the moment.'

As I think the Hon. Mr Parnell said, the title of the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) (Voter Choice) Amendment Bill is a misnomer in and of itself. There is no voter choice. If there were 12 boxes above the line, you could fill in 1 to 12 with all the preferences you wanted to express—Greens 1, Family First 2, Labor 3, right through to number 12, if that is what you wanted to do—and that would be your clear preference. Under this proposed bill, the government would say, 'Well, stuff your preference. You have just voted for Greens No. 1, and if they happen to only have two people on their ticket, it exhausts at the end of 1 and 2.' Even though your second preferential was Family First, that would not matter.

The logic of that, other than through some misguided attempt to try to advantage the major parties at the disadvantage of minor parties, escapes me, and I am sure it will escape the majority of people in the community. The reality is that if we are talking about operational preferential, we are not saying, 'Okay, you can only vote for the two Greens candidates above the line, even if you wanted to express a preference for every other box above the line.' The message for the Attorney-General and the government is that we have had the Greens, Family First and the Nick Xenophon Team clearly indicate, 'Let's get on with it.' This bill is not going to pass the parliament or the Legislative Council because the Liberal Party's position is exactly the same.

The bill is not going to pass, but everyone has said—and I too join now and say officially, although I have said this privately to the Attorney-General on many occasions—that because everyone at some stage has indicated some support for optional preferential, there is the potential for common ground in some version of optional preferential voting. I think everyone has accepted the removal of voter tickets. That appears to be a big tick in terms of progress to stop the preference harvesting and the microparties.

It is then the issue of above the line and below the line. The Hon. Mr Darley has tabled amendments which essentially say up to six boxes above the line. I have had a conversation with the Hon. Mr Darley and my understanding is that he is not going to die in a ditch in the end. If agreement can ultimately be reached, he is prepared to talk.

The Hon. Mr Parnell indicated that he was prepared, on behalf of the Greens, to talk further with all parties represented here. I think he has tabled or is tabling amendments in relation to below the line. I think the Hon. Mr Darley had, in essence, that you had to fill in all the voter blocks below the line. The Hon. Mr Parnell is moving further amendments which would, in essence, allow up to 12, I think?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Optional.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Optional, okay. There are varying versions in relation to that. My personal view, which I have expressed to the Attorney and to other members in the discussions I have had, is that I think there is a powerful argument to try to have as great a consistency as we can with the Senate. The Senate is six above the line—not up to six, but six above the line—and 12 below the line, because you have to elect 12 senators. Our version of that would be six above the line and 11 below the line. However, the Hon. Mr Darley has raised the option of up to six. The Hon. Mr Parnell is looking at options, whether it is up to 11 or 11 or whatever the number might happen to be.

There are varying options along those lines that I think all parties in this chamber are prepared to have a sensible discussion about, but we need to sit down and have a sensible discussion. Saner heads within the caucus, I think, need to say to the Attorney-General, 'Let's get on with it. You've had an invitation from everyone in the upper house. Firstly, the invitation is that you are not going to get your plan A and your plan B; let's now talk about whether we can come up with something which gets rid of voter tickets, which provides optional preferential above and below the line, and let's work through some sort of reasonable compromise in relation to that, which the government, the opposition and the minor parties can support.'

As I said, something along those lines has been supported by every party in this chamber. Thresholds have not been supported by everyone. Sainte-Laguë certainly has not been supported by anyone other than the Labor Party. Various other models have not been, but some version of optional preferential above and below the line has been supported by everybody. It is now a question of whether we can come together to sort out a version that will be able to pass the Legislative Council and then ultimately the House of Assembly.

I urge the Attorney-General not to cut off his nose to spite his face. He has said to me privately on any number of occasions that he wants to achieve reform in this particular area. We are now getting to the end game, but do not leave it until September, October, November, December. We have a few weeks left in this particular session. Let's have the discussions.

I urge the Hon. Mr Ngo and others to speak to the Attorney-General and others and say, 'Okay, let's accept the reality. We know what you prefer, but that ain't going to happen. Let's now sit down and see whether we can actually sort through something sensible to reduce the chances of microparties proliferating within the state to an even greater degree. We recognise the reality, and that is that third parties and Independents have been, and will continue to be, a permanent presence in the state's upper house, in the Legislative Council, and governments, Labor and Liberal, are just going to have to accept that that is the reality of the world as we know it today.

As soon as the Attorney-General and the other hardheads within the Labor Party can get themselves across that hurdle, we can then seriously sit down and work out various models of optional preferential above and below the line. As I said, my personal view is something closer to the Senate, but that is not a party view. Our party view is to strongly oppose the government's bill but to be prepared to negotiate with the minor parties and the government on some version that will work in terms of optional preferential above and below the line.

With that invitation, we indicate our willingness to support the second reading of the bill so that we can get into the committee stage, but we certainly will not be supporting the bill as it stands, and clearly the Legislative Council will not support the bill as it stands.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.

At 16:30 the council adjourned until Tuesday 28 February 2017 at 14:15.