Electoral (Legislative Council Voting and Other Measures) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to amendments Nos 1 to 5, 7, 9 to 13, 15 and 18 to 22 made by the Legislative Council without any amendment; disagreed to amendments Nos 6, 8, 14, 16 and 17; and made alternative amendments as indicated in the following schedule in lieu thereof:

Legislative Council's Amendment

No. 6. Clause 11, 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)

House of Assembly's Alternative Amendment

No. 6. Clause 11, 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)

Legislative Council's Amendment

No. 8. Clause 12, 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.

House of Assembly's Alternative Amendment

No. 8. Clause 12, 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(4b), 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.

Legislative Council's Amendment

No. 14. Clause 13, 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

House of Assembly's Alternative Amendment

No. 14. Clause 13, page 6, lines 25 to 29 [clause 13(1), inserted paragraph (b)(ii)]—Delete all words in line 25 and subsubparagraphs (A) and (B) and substitute:

indicate, in the manner required by this Act, the order of the voter's preference for candidates in the election; or

Legislative Council's Amendments

No. 16. Clause 13, 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.

No. 17.Clause 13, 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.

House of Assembly's Alternative Amendment

Nos. 16 and 17. Clause 13, 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) 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, or 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.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As indicated, I thank members for their contributions to this bill. As indicated by the Attorney-General in the other place, the government has brought back to this chamber a relatively simple proposition. Accepting the message from the House of Assembly and the amendments the house has proposed will result in the voting system for above the line put forward, as I understand it, by the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, namely, one plus. For below the line, the house has proposed a Senate model of 12 plus.

If the government's position from the House of Assembly is not accepted, the houses will be at an impasse. I am advised that it is critical that this matter be resolved before the winter break to enable the Electoral Commissioner to implement reforms. I urge all honourable members to adopt the positive position advocated by the government, as it represents a reasonable compromise and achieves the objectives we aim to see—the removal of preference harvesting and ticket voting. Accordingly, I move:

That the council do not insist on its amendment No. 6 but agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Unsurprisingly, I oppose it and I support the Legislative Council position. We had this debate just a couple of weeks ago. A majority of members in this chamber listened to the government's arguments for the proposition the government is putting again here today and rejected the package of amendments the government now seeks to endorse. This is not a further compromise at all. This is just a restating of the position that was defeated a couple of weeks ago in this chamber.

I do not intend to repeat all the arguments, other than to refer the avid readers of Hansard to the contributions that were made during that debate and the reasons that were given. The primary reason for the difference of view in relation to how we should vote above the line was consistency. It is a complicated system in terms of voting for upper houses in Australia, and South Australia has had a long tradition of consistency between the Senate and the Legislative Council.

The Senate has made recent changes and the amendments that a majority in this chamber supported just a couple of weeks ago were to support changes to the Legislative Council system above the line, which would make them consistent. There were many other reasons given during that debate but I will not restate them. I support the Legislative Council's position and I would hope that members who only a couple of weeks ago supported the Legislative Council's position will continue to maintain the position in relation to the package of amendments.

I should make one other point. I am aware of the position that the government and the Attorney-General have adopted. The government, the opposition and minor party and Independent members in both houses have supported upper house reform in terms of removing vote harvesting or voting tickets. That is consistent in relation to all these provisions. When we debated this bill a couple of years ago, we introduced much higher thresholds for registration of minor parties, etc., which were again intent on trying to ensure that we did not have tablecloth-size ballot papers for upper house elections in South Australia. Again, they continue to be supported.

The Liberal Party has expressed the view that we should support this system and we maintain that view, but we also do not accept the contention that I understand the government is putting that, 'If you don't agree to this, you terrible people in the Legislative Council, we will take our bat and ball and go home, and we won't even introduce the reform of the removal of voting tickets.' That is just so implausible that I think it is unbelievable to almost anybody who observes the political process. As I said, we will be maintaining our position and we urge members in the chamber to vote as they did just a couple of weeks ago.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am pleased that the House of Assembly has sent this one back to us. Whilst I accept a lot of what the Hon. Rob Lucas says in relation to the primary evil to be overcome with the group voting tickets, the backroom preference deals, I still think it is beholden on us to pass the best legislation we possibly can. I think a form of optional preferential voting, where you are not forced to vote for people you do not want, is a more democratic system, so I will be supporting the government position.

I will just make the point that the Hon. Rob Lucas suggested the government had not moved a whole lot. If we cast our mind back, the original proposition that was put forward was the—I can never pronounce it properly—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Sainte-Laguë

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Sainte-Laguë. I kept thinking of 'saint Lego', the patron saint of plastic blocks. The other model that was put forward was the 'just vote 1'—one means one means one—and you have no preferences at all. I think the Attorney has had to let go of that one. I think there has been some movement. In terms of below the line voting, whilst it might be less important in the overall scheme of things, given that only 5 per cent or fewer people vote below the line, I think the reform there is a compromise. So, we will be supporting the government's position.

The Greens' position is to not insist on the Legislative Council amendments, and I would perhaps ask the Chairman, when he is finally putting this to a vote, to assist us with the double negative that is involved so that we do not accidentally vote the wrong way. I will leave it to the Chairman to manage that. I think this is a sensible result. Whilst the nature of voting is that there are winners and losers, at the end of the day we are all winners because we are getting a better, fairer and more democratic voting system.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Australian Conservatives will not be changing our previous position of just a few weeks ago. We will be insisting on the Legislative Council amendments that were sent to the other place. The primary reason for that—we had quite an extensive debate, and I will not go into all of the reasons—is that I have a strong view that, as we have seen in South Australia for very many years now, our upper house voting system has essentially mirrored that of the Senate and we are now, in this amendment today, walking away from that quite substantially.

As members are fully aware, the Senate has very recently passed a new system of voting in the Senate whereby voters are required to number six boxes above the line. Yes, there are savings provisions should they not do that and, of course, we support that model for a savings provision should people not do that in South Australia, as the previous amendment, if you like, the amendment that has been rejected right now by the House of Assembly, would have allowed.

Our primary reason for rejecting the suggested amendments from the House of Assembly is that we are now moving away substantially from mirroring the Senate in what is being proposed, and that is that voters will be able to put one or more numbers in the boxes; that is, they may just put 1, 2, 3, etc., which is a substantial departure from the Senate model. I think that will lead to some confusion. If we are honest, we know that people are largely disengaged from the political process, and all the more so from upper house voting. In fact, it constantly amazes me how many people are unaware that there are two houses in South Australia.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, shocking; I know. So, I think we need to make it as simple as possible. How do we make it as simple as possible? We mirror the model that exists in the Senate so that voters are being told the same message at both the state and federal level so there is no room for confusion. That said, we will see what the house decides, but our position will not change.

I do have a question for the government though, if I can put this to them whilst I am on my feet: the new amendment we are facing right now as passed in the House of Assembly, is there anything else in the bill that prevents a party from advertising a 'Just vote 1' campaign? If you are the Labor Party you could put an ad on TV that says, 'Just put a 1 in the box above the line and don't worry about anything else.' Is there anything in the bill that prevents that, as it stands?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is no.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his response. That is my concern; that highlights my concern. I think what we will see is that we will have parties, who knows which, but there will be parties advertising that. Whilst you can see the attractiveness of the simplicity of that to voters, it is a significant departure from the Senate voting system. I think we will also see, when people come to vote in the Senate next time, after they have been exposed to this in March, should it pass, that it may lead to an increase in formal voting in the Senate vote because people may just vote 1 in the Senate. Of course, there are savings provisions, so that vote would actually be a formal vote in a sense, but it is certainly not what the Senate intended when it passed the legislation.

So, I think there is a strong case for having both the state and federal upper houses elected in the same way. I think we open ourselves to confusing voters by doing this, which I think is unfortunate. My prediction is that we will see one or more parties advertising 'Just vote 1' above the line at the coming state election, which in one sense is appealing from a simplicity point of view, but it does move people further away from truly preferential voting, which is the foundation of our electoral system and has been for a very long time. We are insisting on the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just to assist the council, the Dignity Party will also not be changing its position. We support the position of the government and again thank them for supporting the amendments we put forward to increase diversity in the parliament. I will not go over those amendments again, as we have already agreed to them in this place, but indicate that we will be maintaining our original position.

The CHAIR: The question is: that the council insist on its amendment. So, if you want to support the government's alternative you have to oppose that.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position remains the same. We support the Legislative Council's position. We note that in the last division the government got the surprising support of one additional member, who changed his position from last time. We assume, although we have not heard from that member in terms of his position, that that position is the same for the other amendments. I will put a question to the Hon. Mr Darley as to whether he is going to vote with the government for the remaining three amendments. If that is the case, then we will not divide, but if the Hon. Mr Darley will not indicate his position we will continue to divide just to see our position.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the government.

The CHAIR: Unless there are no further contributions I will put the question that the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.

Motion carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the council do not insist on its amendment No. 8 but agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, the Liberal Party's position is to support the Legislative Council position but given the indication now of the Hon. Mr Darley, having changed his position, we will not be calling divide.

The CHAIR: I put the question: that the council insist on its amendment.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, on behalf of the Liberal members I indicate that our position is to support the position of the Legislative Council, but given the indication that the Hon. Mr Darley has given, that he has now changed his position, we will not be calling divide.

Motion carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the council do not insist upon its amendment No. 14 but agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I indicate that the Liberal Party's position is to support the position of the Legislative Council. As the Hon. Mr Darley has indicated that he has changed his position from a couple of weeks ago, we will not be calling a divide.

The CHAIR: I put the question: that the council insist on its amendment.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate on behalf of Liberal members that we support the position of the Legislative Council, but as the Hon. Mr Darley has indicated that he has changed his position from a couple of weeks ago we will not be calling a divide.

Motion carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the council do not insist upon its amendments Nos 16 and 17 but agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, on behalf of Liberal members, I indicate that we support the position of the Legislative Council, but as the Hon. Mr Darley has indicated that he has changed his position from just two weeks ago we will not be calling a divide.

The CHAIR: I put the question: that the council insist on its amendment.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

That the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.

Motion carried.