State Election Campaign

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on—

(a) all aspects of the 2018 state election and matters related thereto, with particular reference to—

(i) the operation of the funding, expenditure and disclosure scheme as outlined in the Electoral Act 1985 (the act);

(ii) the operation of changes to the voting provisions of the act;

(iii) the application of provisions requiring authorisation of electoral material to all forms of communication to voters;

(iv) the influence of advertising by associated entities and/or third parties who are not registered political parties during the campaign targeting candidates and political parties;

(v) the need for 'truth in advertising' provisions to communication to voters including third party communications;

(vi) the regulation of associated entities and/or third parties undertaking campaign activities; and

(vii) the potential application of new technology to voting, scrutiny and counting.

(b) the regulatory regime regarding donations and contributions from persons and entities to political parties, associated entities and other third parties and entities undertaking campaign activities;

(c) the extent to which fundraising and expenditure by associated entities and/or third parties is conducted in concert with registered political parties and the applicability and utilisation of tax deductibility by entities involved in campaign activities; and

(d) any related matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 1 August 2018.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:31): I rise today to expand on my earlier comments in this place, calling for the establishment of a select committee inquiry into the results of the 2018 state election. To again borrow a phrase from revered ABC election analyst, Antony Green, the 2018 election was 'a bit like a First World War battlefield'. Political operatives inside all of the party war rooms, regardless of their political persuasions, would attest to the same description. Like any war, it was fierce, harsh and confronting, but it was also bitter, it was vitriolic, it was nasty, it was deceitful and, for much of the time, it was personal.

As campaign director for SA-Best at the time, I had a unique, raw, front-row and, I must say, disturbing view of how low some political operatives are prepared to stoop in a blatant attempt to grab votes. All of this in an environment where little regard is given to the individual under personal attack and the impact those vitriolic attacks might have on their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their loved ones.

Perhaps the worst example I know of is that involving a text message sent at the time to Nick Xenophon from an individual in the gambling lobby, which threatened to 'kill him off'. What have we become when we consider that sort of behaviour appropriate? Are we really that desperate to win that we deem it acceptable behaviour?

I have certainly been at the receiving end of some mean-spirited scheming and underhanded attempts to sully my reputation, my personal reputation, so I know how ugly that sort of behaviour can get. As I said during my maiden speech in this place, my skin has certainly thickened a lot over the years and it would take a lot more than that sort of desperate gutter tactics to deter me from course.

I know I am not alone; in fact, one need not look further than our federal colleagues in Canberra at the moment and the numerous and ongoing claims of harassment, bullying and unprovoked personal attacks, some of which have led to MPs resigning and/or choosing not to stand at the next federal election. Frankly, today's question time in this place was not a lot better, and it is little wonder that politicians get such a bad rap.

As politicians in a position of power to bring about change, we must do better to ensure that the gutter tactics used by some political parties during the 2018 state election are never allowed to happen again. When I first moved for the establishment of the select committee of inquiry into the results of the election, I described the state election as being the most targeted and bitter campaign I have ever been involved with. I am afraid time has not sullied that view.

SA-Best and specifically Nick Xenophon, our leader at the time, copped the brunt of it and much of it was personal. While I am fully cognisant of the fact that there is little sympathy for politicians in the community, that does not excuse the behaviour of our politicians, party members and staff. Generally speaking, and as far as the general population is concerned, most elections, state and federal, are a battle between the major parties, Labor and Liberal.

Using the war euphemism, again the combatants can see their enemies coming over the trenches straight ahead of them and mount their attacks accordingly. Traditionally, nothing much else distracts either party on their chosen (war) pathway to victory. That was not the case in the 2018 election, and that is when we entered the battleground. We set out to position ourselves—and I know I have said this before—as a genuine alternative political party and, in doing so, seriously challenged and threatened to undermine the privileged positions of power that major parties have enjoyed in this state for decades.

We wanted to strike some common ground with voters who were disenchanted with the major parties and seeking to vote for a party who could make a difference. We went into the election seeking to win enough seats to hold the balance of power and to ensure that we held whichever party ultimately won to account. Our strategy, and the threat we represented, clearly sent shock waves through both major parties and prompted them to change their traditional battle plans. Both parties and their vested interest groups unleashed a tsunami of lies, mistruths, slurs and downright gutter politics against us, the likes of which we have never seen before in South Australian politics.

As we said at the time, 'Labor says SA-Best will support the Liberals. The Liberals say we'll support Labor. They can't both be right.' Unlike the Liberals and Labor, we fought a war on all fronts. It was win at all costs for the Liberals and ALP, regardless of the fallout. The Liberals jumped into bed with the rich poker machine barons who control the AHA, the Australian Hotels Association, which, coincidentally, we estimate invested at least $250,000 in its advertising campaign that expressly told lie after lie about SA-Best and the impact our gambling policy would have in SA.

I might add that our policy was not the same as the Greens' policy. The Greens' policy could arguably be construed as much more radical than ours at the time, but they did not rate a mention in those advertising campaigns. Labor and the powerful union movement that controls and dictates who should represent the party in parliament unleashed a disgusting scare campaign of its own. Anything was on the agenda to ensure SA-Best did not gain a foothold in the South Australian parliament. It was an election fought on a scale never before seen, with huge amounts of money spent by the AHA and SA Unions urging people to vote, not against each of the major parties but against SA-Best.

It was unheralded in South Australia's political history and it was motivated to undermine Nick and keep us out of parliament. As we know, the AHA is a powerful vested interest group which had unprecedented influence on the outcome of the election. It saw SA-Best as the main threat to its livelihood and the insidious pokie dens that have infiltrated nearly every pub and hotel in SA. It had everything to lose and nothing to win if SA-Best achieved what it set out to achieve. If the status quo remained and poker machine numbers in SA remained at current levels, their members would continue to make huge profits on the back of gambling addicts' misery.

As a result, pubs across the city were plastered—absolutely plastered—with posters urging people to vote against us as though we were public enemy No. 1 and, on a personal note, to vote against Nick as though he were public enemy No. 1. This was one of the many complaints that I made to the Electoral Commission on behalf of SA-Best. On election day, polling booths were strewn with corflutes picturing Nick in bed with Jay Weatherill.

The response I got from the Electoral Commission was absolutely astounding. The commission found that the corflutes picturing Nick and Jay in bed with the slogan 'Don't risk it' were not in breach of the Electoral Act because the phrase 'could be considered a possible future implication' and as such would not be considered misleading to a material extent. On the other hand, the very same posters with the same image of Nick and Jay in bed together, containing the slogan 'A vote for either of them is a vote for both of them', were found to be in breach of the act to the extent that they were deemed to be misleading and based on inaccurate information.

My complaint was made first thing in the morning on election day at 9.36—I checked the email. Of course, by the time the matter was considered and a determination was handed down by the Electoral Commission that the signs be removed, the damage had been done. They were literally everywhere. What is obvious is that the legislation regarding such advertising is so narrow in scope that the Electoral Commission was forced to seek Crown law advice to determine what could be deemed a hypothetical situation as opposed to a real-life situation.

There were many other similar examples that were blatant, misleading mistruths, but because of the limitations of our electoral laws—laws clearly intended to favour the two major parties—there was absolutely nothing that I, as campaign director, or SA-Best could do to address them and, believe me, I tried. I sent complaint after complaint, and many of those complaints remain outstanding, which is astonishing.

I know that a lot of this will fall on deaf ears in this place, but I believe that the general public would agree that, if we truly believe this institution is governed not by those elected to this place but rather by vested interests and we not only do nothing about it but accept it as perfectly normal, we have a real problem. Again, reflect on the unedifying events that transpired in Canberra in recent weeks and try explaining to the general public how that had anything at all to do with the good of the nation rather than the might of the factions. Explain to decent, hardworking Australian voters how our ever-revolving door of prime ministers is good for our nation.

SA-Best paid the ultimate price at the election, but at least we can hold our heads up high knowing that we did not jump into bed with lobby groups, we did not jump into bed with vested interest groups, we did not put our personal interests ahead of South Australian voters and we did not stoop to gutter politics. The election landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. So, too, are the tactics used by political parties during election campaigns, some of which are nothing more than sheer lies and skulduggery designed to scare voters—think mediscare.

It is for these reasons that I seek to establish the select committee of inquiry into the results of the 2018 election. Let's not wait until the eve of the next state election to canvass what is working and what is not working with our electoral laws. Let's ensure, well in advance of the next election, that we have in place strong mechanisms to appropriately deal with desperate—and some would argue immoral—political tactics like those that were experienced during the 2018 state election. In closing, I foreshadow my intention to bring this matter to a vote on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.