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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 March 2017.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (17:35): I thank those honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. As foreshadowed in the contributions of members and in the amendments that have been filed by them, it is clear that there is support in parliament for a model of changing the way preferential voting works for the Legislative Council. I am informed that there have been productive discussions between members of parliament in recent months as to the appropriate model of some form of optional preferential voting.

The government has filed amendments that propose the following model: that a person voting above the line must vote for at least one group and can vote for more than one group if they choose; and that a person voting below the line must vote for at least 12 candidates and can vote for more than 12 candidates if they choose to. A ballot paper that only indicates a preference for six candidates below the line will not be ruled informal, however.

Those government amendments—amendments under myself [Minister for Employment-1]—also contain a number of technical amendments that I hope honourable members will support even if the government's preferred model of optional preferential is not supported. They address issues that have been identified in relation to the bill since it was introduced in the house. They are amendments that are relevant irrespective of the model of optional preferential voting that finds support in this chamber, and I will draw attention to those particular amendments in the course of the committee stage.

The government has also filed a second set of amendments on a discrete issue. Those amendments seek to change the title of this bill to the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting and Other Measures) Amendment Bill and to insert a change to broaden the regulation-making power in part 13A. The purpose of this change is this: the government wants to require people making political donations to provide information on their donation disclosure returns that enables the public to identify foreign influence.

There is not currently sufficient regulation-making power in part 13A to make regulations that would require all donors to provide that additional information. The second set of amendments filed in my name provide that additional regulation-making power.

Again, I thank honourable members for their contributions, their support, and I look forward to dealing with this in a reasonable, expedient manner. I think there is general agreement on a number of the issues that are required irrespective of the model that gets up, and I think members understand what is being debated and what the alternative models are. This is an important issue, and I think there has been good discussion and I look forward to a model receiving support, because I think everyone agrees that the way that we currently do it does need reform.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (17:39): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move an instruction without notice.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it have the power to insert new clauses in relation to disclosure of political donations and to amend the short title.

Motion carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to respond to the minister's closing of the second reading debate and agree substantively with his summary. Can I thank, on behalf of the government, the Attorney-General, his personal staff and advisers and his legal advisers from his department, together with, at various stages, Electoral Commission staff and party officers, who have all been involved in very intensive and healthy discussion and debate.

Can I also thank the representatives of the minor parties, or the third parties, in the Legislative Council. There have been a continuing series of discussions and debates about this particular issue. There was a clear wish and intention from all involved to resolve this issue before the coming mid-year break. We did not want to be in the position we were in prior to 2014, where it was all left too late. That has certainly been the intention from the government, from the opposition and from the other minor party representatives as well.

If I can summarise the position, which is very similar to what the minister summarised. Essentially, the package of amendments that I will be moving are what I will refer to as the Senate-style amendments. In essence, they have been drafted on the basis of asking parliamentary counsel to reflect almost exactly the new model of voting that has been supported at the federal level for the federal Senate. Part of the argument, as we go into the detail of that, will be in relation to the consistency argument.

I think the situation now, with the withdrawal of various amendments, is going to be that everyone seems to be agreed that below the line, what is referred to as the Senate-style amendments, will be agreed. The minister has outlined voting for 12, etc., below the line. That is, in essence, the Senate-style system, so I think there is significant agreement right across the board in relation to that.

Where there is potentially two differing views will be on voting above the line. The amendments I will be putting will be indicating support for, again, the Senate-style system above the line. On the basis of my discussions, I think there is a reasonable prospect that there might be a majority in this chamber to support that, but it is for members to speak for themselves in relation to that. The minister has outlined the alternative above the line, which is the '1' in a box and you can use optional preferential for the rest if you want to. The Senate system, put simply, is exactly the same as in the Senate. You have six in a box, but there is a saving provision. The saving provision says that, if you happen to just put one in a box, your vote will count.

The thing the minister did not mention but has been mentioned in all of the debate is that the major reform in all of this, which has been discussed, is the removal of the voting tickets. The government, the opposition and I think most in this chamber have accepted that this is the major reform. We are, in essence, now having a debate about the appropriate form of optional preferential above the line. We are going to agree with what the optional preferential is below the line.

The test clause, I am told by parliamentary counsel, for our Senate-style system is my amendment No. 3. So, what I am suggesting is, if there is a majority for supporting the Senate-style system both above and below the line, the test case for that will be my amendment No. 3, so it is very early. If that is successful, then a whole range of the rest of my amendments will flow and we will not need to debate those particular amendments. It should be a fairly simple argument and debate from then onwards.

I indicate that I agree with the minister that there are some what are called technical amendments, which are consistent with both particular models. We will support the minister's technical amendments and then, in addition to that, there are one or two specific issues that we can address when they come around. Those are the donors issue, and there is the issue about the amendments the Hon. Kelly Vincent has tabled, which are separate issues as well, which we can debate when we get to those. By and large, I think most of these amendments can be collapsed back to almost one or maybe two decisions or votes of this chamber, and we can move very quickly through the committee stages.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To assist the committee, I will not repeat all the things that the Hon. Rob Lucas just said, but I agree with his assessment of where this debate is going. Just to assist the chamber, leaving aside those additional issues such as the Hon. Kelly Vincent's issue and some of the other minor government things, we are talking about above the line voting and below the line.

When it comes to below the line, the Greens have a pure optional preferential model, which we will be pursuing. When it comes to above the line voting, we also have a pure model, but the government has adopted it into their amendments so, therefore, we will not be moving [Parnell-2], because they are effectively replicated in the government's amendments plus some additional clauses that are uncontroversial.

We are happy to proceed on that basis but just to provide additional information to help in the calling of divisions, it is not my intention to call divisions but, if there were to be any, we will be supporting the government amendments and opposing the opposition amendments, and we will be supporting at least one or two of the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be very brief as well and just indicate that there is no need to go over the ground that has already been spoken about. In terms of which amendments the Australian Conservatives will support, I thank all members for the extensive discussions we have had in this place about coming to a mutual decision as to what may be the right outcome.

There are obviously different views about that, and they are reflected in the various amendments before us today but, after a great deal of reflection and discussion, we have decided that we will be supporting the opposition amendments. We will not be supporting the government's position. I have disclosed that to the Attorney-General in the last 48 hours or so. I have had discussion with the Greens previously as well, and we will not be supporting their amendments. So, that is our position, and we look forward to the bill passing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Just to clarify my position, I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendments, I will be opposing the government's amendments and I will be opposing the Greens' amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Employment–2]—

Page 2, line 4—Delete ')(Voter Choice' and substitute 'and Other Measures'

This amendment changes the short title of the bill. I foreshadowed the purpose of that in my second reading summing up speech, so I will not go over that ground again. It is pretty simple.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Support.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

New clause 5A.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Vincent–3]—

Page 3, after line 19—Insert:

5A—Amendment of section 57—Deposit to be forfeited in certain cases

Section 57(1)(c)—delete '4 per cent' and substitute '2 per cent'

This amendment seeks to reduce the primary vote attainment threshold required from 4 per cent to 2 per cent, to have the $3,000 candidate deposit returned to the Legislation Council group candidates only. For minor parties, the changes we are making to the voting system in the Legislative Council significantly disadvantage minor parties and threaten to reduce the diversity the electorate is offered.

We believe that a compromise position, which acknowledges that South Australia still has an upper house candidate deposit at least six times greater than any other state, creates a significant barrier to the democratic process. This is to get back your $3,000 for group candidates in the upper house only, not the lower house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens support this amendment. Our position has always been that the barrier to entry to parliament should be getting sufficient votes from the community. We do not want to see unnecessary barriers to standing for parliament, and a $3,000 deposit in the upper house is a barrier. If you have a team of three that is $9,000. We support the reduction of the amount of votes you need to get back that money to be reduced from 4 per cent to 2 per cent.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government has reviewed the amendment and will support the Hon. Kelly Vincent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that we will not oppose the amendment, given that with the government's support and minor party support the amendment will pass. I recognise the numbers in the chamber. I have not had an opportunity to take this to a party room meeting, as you would know Mr Acting Chairman, but I recognise the numbers in the chamber and I will not be voting against it.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 6 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Employment–1]—

Page 4, line 35 [clause 10(6)]—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) Section 66(4)—delete 'the electoral material referred to in subsection (1) is arranged' and substitute:

material is displayed in a poster or posters prepared under this section

I foreshadowed this amendment in the second reading summing-up that applies, in our view, irrespective of the model of OPV that is passed. Very briefly, it was proposed on the basis that section 66(4) appeared to duplicate 66(2). However, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner has advised that section 66(2) informs the order in which candidates must be listed on the how-to-vote card and section 66(4) informs the way in which how-to-vote cards will be displayed in a poster prepared by the Electoral Commissioner. On that basis, that section still has work to do. We think this is a sensible amendment that will have a function regardless of which model of OPV is preferred by this chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party acknowledges that this is a technical amendment consistent with both models and we will support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lucas–1]—

Page 5, line 9—Delete '76(1)(b)—delete paragraph (b)' and substitute:

76(1)(a) and (b)—delete paragraphs (a) and (b)

This is exactly the same as the government amendment, so I am sure there will be furious agreement.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lucas–1]—

Page 5, after line 9—Insert:

(a) by placing the number 1 in the square printed opposite the name of the candidate for whom he or she votes as his or her first preference and consecutive numbers in the squares printed opposite the names of other candidates so as to indicate the order of preference for not less than 12 candidates in total (or, if there are 12 or fewer candidates in the election, so as to indicate the order of preference for all remaining candidates); or

This is essentially the first amendment that incorporates a Senate voting system below the line as outlined by the minister, which he and the government are now supporting as well.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I had better say this now. This amendment is inconsistent with the Greens' amendment. If this amendment passes, mine will not. The Greens' position is that below the line voters should not be forced to vote for candidates they do not want to. Our position is for pure optional preferential—as many or as few as you want below the line—so I will be opposing this amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Parnell, earlier I thought you indicated that you were not going to be moving your amendment. You have now indicated that if this result happens—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is a different issue. I said I would not move my above the line amendments, so I will not be moving set 2 and I probably will not be moving set 1, to be honest, because this may well pass. I just wanted it to be on the record that the Greens' position is for optional preferential below the line. We do not think you should be forced to vote for 12 or any other number. As many or as few as you want is our position.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I put on the record very quickly that the government will be supporting the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment. We had an amendment in exactly the same terms to require that number preference be indicated in below the line voting.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lucas–1]—

Page 5, line 12 [clause 11, inserted paragraph (b)]—After 'preference' insert:

and consecutive numbers in other group voting squares so as to indicate the order of preference for not less than 6 groups of candidates in total (or, if there are 6 or fewer group voting squares on the ballot paper, so as to indicate the order of preference for all remaining groups of candidates)

My advice is that this is, in essence, the test clause for above the line. As we have already outlined, I think we know where everyone stands in relation to this. This is introducing the Senate-style voting system above the line. There are no voting tickets. You vote for six groups above the line. You can vote for all of them if you want to, but you have to vote for six. There is a saving provision in the Senate and there is a saving provision in this as well. If you vote for only one, it will count as a valid or formal vote for one. It is exactly the same as the Senate system, again, on the consistency argument.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that the government will be opposing the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment in preference for an amendment that we have filed. We are not miles apart, I do not think, on the two rival schemes that are being proposed. As he has indicated, the Hon. Rob Lucas's scheme requires, like the Senate, a minimum of six, but with a saving provision should someone continue the practice that they may have engaged in for a number of decades in voting for just one.

What we propose is full OPV. If you know me and my views on this over a consistent amount of time, I think doing away with group voting tickets is very desirable. We will be voting against the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment in preference for ours, but we recognise that they both go substantially towards doing the same thing, and that is voting above the line. It is a full OPV system versus a Senate-style OPV system.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Can I ask you to formally move it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, line 12 [clause 11, inserted paragraph (b)]—After 'preference' insert:

and, if the voter so desires, by placing the number '2' and consecutive numbers in the group voting squares that relate to other groups of candidates in the order of the voter's preference for them (but not so as to be required to indicate a preference for all groups of candidates)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will be opposing the Liberal amendment and I will be supporting the government amendment. The reasons are very similar to those that I outlined for below the line voting. We do not believe voters should be forced to vote for anyone they do not want to vote for. The way to achieve that result is to enable people to vote for as many or as few candidates, or in this case parties, as they want above the line. We will not be supporting the Liberal amendment. We will be supporting the Labor amendment, which is the same as the Greens' amendment, which I will not be moving.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Liberal amendment on this occasion and opposing the government's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate the same as the Hon. Mr Darley. We will be supporting the opposition amendment and opposing the government amendment.

The committee divided on the Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

The Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment thus carried.

The CHAIR: That means the minister's amendment will not proceed.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Very briefly, given that we have just had that vote and it has been successful, I have a question for the minister and his adviser to clarify. I think I know the answer but just for the sake of absolute caution, is there still the provision then existing, as there is in the Senate that parties cannot advertise to just 'Vote 1'; they still have to encourage voters to 'Vote 1 to 6'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is similar to the lower house where there is the same provision, but you cannot actually advertise it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is exactly the same as the provision in the House of Assembly, and the advice I had is that there is a saving provision in the House of Assembly where, if you just vote 1 in a box in the House of Assembly, your vote will count, but you cannot advertise to just 'Vote 1' in a box.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of further information, I am advised that it is section 126(1) that applies to both the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. Even though in both houses there is the saving provision, you are not allowed to advocate doing what would otherwise be an informal vote but for that saving provision.

Clause as amended passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, after line 12—Insert:

11A—Amendment of section 84B—Applying provisions of Act to elector using electronic assisted voting

Section 84B(1)(b)—delete 'satisfy the requirements of section 76' and substitute:

not be an informal ballot paper

This is one of those provisions that we would have had to do regardless of whichever regime got up. That is the system being advocated by the opposition. It contains a requirement for at least 12 votes below the line for candidates. We discussed this in relation to an earlier clause and both the opposition and the government supported it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand it, it relates to electronic assisted voting. It is a technical amendment which we support.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of clarification, the honourable member is right. It is a technical amendment for electronic assistance for the requirement to vote for at least 12 candidates below the line.

New clause inserted.

Clause 12.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lucas–1]—

Page 5, lines 16 to 28 [clause 12, inserted subsections (2) and (3)]—

Delete inserted subsections (2) and (3) and substitute:

(2) If 1 or more numbers, that are not disregarded under section 94(4d), are placed in group voting squares on a ballot paper in relation to groups of candidates (each group being a preferenced group), the ballot paper is taken to have been marked as if—

(a) each candidate in a preferenced group was given a different number starting from 1; and

(b) candidates in a preferenced group were numbered consecutively starting with the candidate whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group to the candidate whose name is at the bottom; and

(c) the order in which candidates in different preferenced groups are numbered is worked out by reference to the order in which the groups were numbered on the ballot paper, starting with the group marked 1; and

(d) when all the candidates in a preferenced group have been numbered, the candidate whose name is at the top of the next preferenced group is given the next consecutive number.

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lucas–1]—

Page 5, lines 29 to 31 [clause 12, inserted subsection (4)]—

Delete 'a ballot paper in accordance with subsection (2) and also indicates preferences for individual candidates (whether or not the voter also places other numbers in other group voting squares)' and substitute:

1 or more group voting squares in accordance with subsection (2) but also indicates preferences for individual candidates

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Rob Lucas has another two amendments. Are they consequential?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek the minister's adviser's advice on this. This is actually consequential, but my understanding is that the government amendment No. 10 might be a better version of this. It does exactly the same thing, but the words are slightly different. Therefore, if that is the government's advice, I would not move this particular amendment in lieu of government amendment No. 10.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the adviser is nodding furiously and we think that is a sensible way to proceed. I move:

Amendment No 8 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, line 34 [clause 12, inserted subsection (4)(a)]—Delete ', if it stood alone, constitute a valid' and substitute:

not, if it stood alone, constitute an informal

Amendment No 9 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, line 39 [clause 12, inserted subsection (4)(b)]—Delete 'not, if it stood alone, constitute a valid' and substitute:

, if it stood alone, constitute an informal

These are technical amendments in the vein of ones we have previously talked about that we would have had to do regardless of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We agree. We support government amendments Nos 8 and 9.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, line 40 [clause 12, inserted subsection (4)(b)]—After 'recorded their vote' insert:

by the marking of the group voting square or squares

This is the amendment, as I understand it, that I am moving in preference to amendment No. 6 standing in the Hon. Rob Lucas's name. It does a very similar thing with very slightly different wording.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Lucas–1]—

Page 6, lines 1 to 15 [clause 12, inserted subsections (5) and (6)]—Delete inserted subsections (5) and (6)

This is consequential. Whilst the minister takes advice, in my view, this amendment is consequential, although it is tangentially consequential. That is, what this is saying is that in the government package of amendments, if you had one in a square below the line, then in some way that would count for a vote above the line. That was consistent with the government package of amendments. Given the government package has not got up, we do not believe it has any work to do and, therefore, from that viewpoint, we believe it is consequential to the package of amendments that parliament has now accepted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government agrees that it is consequential, given the vote that the chamber had earlier.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Lucas–1]—

Page 6, lines 28 and 29 [clause 13(1), inserted paragraph (b)(ii)(B)]—

Delete subsubparagraph (B) and substitute:

(B) the order of the voter's preference for groups of candidates in accordance with section 76(1)(b); or

This is consequential on previous discussions. I think it might also be consistent with one of the government amendments.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Lucas–1]—

Page 6, after line 29—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 94(3)—after 'ballot paper' (first occurring) insert 'for a House of Assembly election'

This is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Lucas–1]—

Page 6, line 34 [clause 13(4)]—After 'delete subsection (4a)' insert:

and substitute:

(4a) A ballot paper for a Legislative Council election where there are more than 6 candidates is not informal under subsection (1)(b)(ii)(A) if the voter has placed consecutive numbers (starting from the number '1') in the squares printed opposite the names of at least 6 candidates in total.

(4b) For the purposes of this Act, the following numbers placed in a square printed opposite the name of a candidate on a ballot paper for a Legislative Council election are to be disregarded:

(a) numbers that are repeated and any higher numbers;

(b) if a number is missed—any numbers that are higher than the missing number.

This is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Lucas–1]—

Page 6, after line 34—Insert:

(5) Section 94—before subsection (5) insert:

(4c) A ballot paper for a Legislative Council election is not informal under subsection (1)(b)(ii)(B) if the voter has placed the number '1' in a group voting square, or has placed the number '1' and one or more higher numbers in group voting squares, on the ballot paper.

(4d) For the purposes of this Act, the following numbers placed in a group voting square on a ballot paper for a Legislative Council election are to be disregarded:

(a) numbers that are repeated and any higher numbers;

(b) if a number is missed—any numbers that are higher than the missing number.

This is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Employment–1]—

Page 7, lines 1 and 2 [clause 14(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

Amendment No 17 [Employment–1]—

Page 7, lines 10 and 11 [clause 14(6)]—Delete subclause (6)

Amendment No 18 [Employment–1]—

Page 7, lines 23 to 39 [clause 14(11)]—Delete subclause (11) and substitute:

(11) Section 95(15)—after 'last vacancy' insert:

for which 2 continuing candidates remain

(11a) Section 95(16)—delete 'the last vacancy' and substitute:

a vacancy referred to in subsection (15)

(11b) Section 95(17)—after 'are elected' insert:

(regardless of whether those candidates have received a number of votes equal to or greater than the quota)

These are amendments, as foreshadowed, that have occurred from advice when the bill was drafted and would have applied, regardless of the scheme that was preferred.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will support them as they are technical amendments. An added benefit is that I therefore will not be moving amendment No. 12 [Lucas] because that is subsumed by government amendment No. 18. I support these amendments from the government and I will not move my amendment No. 12.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15 passed.

New clause 16.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Vincent–3]—

Page 8, after line 4—Insert:

16—Amendment of section 130Q—Payment not to be made or to be reduced in certain circumstances

(1) Section 130Q(1)(a)—delete 'at least 4% of the total primary vote; or' and substitute:

—

(i) in the case of a candidate in a Legislative Council election—at least 2% of the total primary vote; or

(ii) in the case of a candidate in a House of Assembly election—at least 4% of the total primary vote; or

(2) Section 130Q(2)(a)—delete '4%' and substitute '2%'

My third amendment seeks to reduce the primary vote attainment threshold required from 4 per cent to 2 per cent to receive public electoral funding for Legislative Council group candidates. Again, as I have said earlier in this place—in fact, as I have said many times—the changes that have been made and continue to be made to the Leg. Co. reduce the likelihood of election for many major parties and thereby reduce the diversity in our parliament. Allowing public funding at this lower threshold enables some funding towards costs incurred in running an election for those who achieve 2 per cent of the statewide vote or higher.

Again, we want to see diversity in our parliament and we think the more recognition we can give to parties for the votes that they attain after that threshold, whether it be 2 or 4 per cent (but we would like 2), the better.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government has reviewed these amendments and, like the previous amendments moved by the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the government indicates support.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have no authority from my party room because I have not discussed this issue with my party room. I acknowledge that if the government is supporting it—and I understand that whilst the Hon. Mr Parnell has not indicated publicly his position, he is—

The Hon. T.T. Ngo: He's taking advice.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He is taking advice, okay. I think I need some indication from the other minor party members as to where they are going to be. Previously the Attorney and I have had a remarkably productive relationship in terms of discussing matters of public funding. On this particular issue I have had no discussion with the Attorney. I have had a brief discussion and expressed some disappointment with the Attorney's adviser in relation to this issue that the government is agreeing to this particular position, which is something contrary to the discussions I have had with the Attorney and the government previously in relation to public funding and the access to public funding at the 4 per cent threshold issue.

I am a realist in relation to these things, and the government has made its decision. But I am just not in a position to indicate the party's position on this because we have not discussed it. I really am looking to the other members of the chamber to indicate where they are going to be on this, because if ultimately there is a majority in this chamber, then, as with the earlier one, the position of the Liberal Party is not going to matter. But, ultimately, if there is a divided view amongst the other minor parties on this particular issue, I will have to put a Liberal Party position, which will essentially be that I cannot support at this particular stage because I have no authority to do so.

I think the Hon. Ms Vincent would understand that position. I guess I am looking to hear from other members as to where they are; given that the government is now supporting the Hon. Ms Vincent's position I am interested to know the positions of the Greens, the Australian Conservatives and the Hon. Mr Darley on the issue.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas is correct in that we had been working on the assumption that the government would not have a bar of this, so we thought it was a bit of a moot point. We have not consulted widely with it, but we are well aware of what it does. It provides that parties that have at least 2 per cent of the vote in the upper house only will be able to access public funding. In the interests of keeping the issue alive, and for the reasons the Hon. Kelly Vincent set out, we will support the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We had also anticipated that the government would reject the amendment, so I must say that we have not widely consulted either. That said, in the case of public funding it is in my DNA, I think—as it is no doubt in other members' DNA—to be very careful with public funding, but in the case of public funding there are several hoops that a political party has to jump through. It is not just the vote they receive, of course, whether it be 2 per cent or 4 per cent; there is also a registration process, etc., etc.

I do not believe that changing the threshold from 4 per cent to 2 per cent will create a substantial difference in the number of parties that actually qualify for public funding. That being the case, and given that the government is supporting it, we are prepared to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Likewise, I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is obviously a majority in this chamber to support it, and on that basis I will not divide against it. I am just not in a position to indicate that we can support the amendment.

New clause inserted.

New clauses 17 and 18.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Employment–2]—

Page 8, after line 4—After clause 15 insert:

17—Repeal of section 130ZU

Section 130ZU—delete the section

18—Insertion of section 130ZZH

After section 130ZZG insert:

130ZZH—Regulations

(1) The regulations may require greater detail to be provided in returns than is otherwise required by this Part.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may—

(a) require that a return under Division 7 include additional information relating to persons making gifts, loans or bequests; or

(b) require that the total amounts referred to in section 130ZN be broken down in the way specified in the regulations.

(3) The regulations may reduce the amount of information to be provided in returns under section 130ZO.

Section 130ZU sets out regulation-making powers that relate specifically to division 8 of part 13A. This amendment deletes section 130ZU and replaces it with new regulation-making powers. The new section 130ZZH is in terms that are very similar to the former section 130ZU; the differences are that it applies to part 13A in its entirety and not just to division 8, which relates to political party returns, and it specifically provides that a return under division 7 can include additional information relating to persons making gifts, loans or bequests.

The reason for the amendment is as follows. The government wants to require people making political donations to provide information on their donation disclosure returns that enables the public to identify foreign influence. This will further enhance transparency around political donations and political influence. There is currently not sufficient regulation-making power in part 13A to make regulations that would require all donors to provide the additional information. This amendment addresses that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, this is not an issue I have had a chance to discuss or to take to the joint party room. I can speak personally and indicate that, on the surface of it, I have no great opposition to this particular amendment. The particular savings provision is that it essentially establishes a regulation-making power and, should my party eventually take a position that the particular regulation the government seeks to bring down is offensive, we still have the power as a parliament to move to disallow that regulation in the Legislative Council. That would be a savings provision.

As I said, on the surface, this particular amendment is hard to argue against in relation to being able to establish the bona fides of foreign donors and seeking further information. In terms of the specifics of any particular regulation, we reserve our position until we see that. Clearly, as a party and as a chamber, we have the power to disallow a regulation if we think it is too intrusive or too offensive. On that basis, I do not intend to oppose the amendment moved by the minister.

New clauses inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (18:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.