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 19 September 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:46): I rise today to speak on this motion, and I thank the honourable member for bringing this motion to the chamber. Whilst we will not be supporting the motion in the form that it is in today, we are not opposed to having a look at some of the issues raised, if necessary. This is not to say that we do not think elements of the election, and perhaps even some of the elements raised, should not be reviewed, but the Electoral Commissioner conducts a review after each election. I note that it is explicit in the budget papers that were released last month that the targets for the Electoral Commission in 2018-19 are to:

Conduct an operational review of the 2018 State Election and develop a program of improvements for conducting future state elections.

Publish state election evaluation report and statistical report.

Conduct audit of election campaign expenditure by registered political parties and independent candidates in accordance with public funding scheme.

These reviews, reports and audits may throw up something of interest. Legislative change may even be required. Some of the regimes under which the election runs may need to be tweaked. We will have a good look at that report once it is handed down by the Electoral Commissioner. If further things need to be investigated, we are not closed to having a further look at things, but I think the opposition's position has merits in letting those reviews, and then reports, be conducted first. We are happy to continue this discussion if there is anything further that needs to be done.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:48): The Greens are supporting this motion. We look forward to a committee being established. It appears from the numbers that that might not happen today. I will make the point that, in the past, the Greens have strongly supported a standing committee on electoral matters and we believe it should be a regular feature of parliament because issues arise after every single election. We are keen that all stakeholders get a chance to reflect on what went well and what went badly in the conduct of the election.

Certainly, I have had discussions with some of our administrative officers, who found some of the financial reporting requirements burdensome, especially having to issue audited null returns in relation to income and expenditure in the final days of the campaign. There are also lots of issues in relation to the Electoral Commission's interpretation of some of the rules.

I have had a conversation with a few members in this chamber around some material that was declared invalid by the Electoral Commission. When I pointed out to them that the Liberal and Labor material was identical, they then declared theirs invalid. I said, 'I don't want you to declare theirs invalid, just let us hand out our stuff.' That did not go well. There are a lot of issues that I think we need to deal with. The Greens are supportive of a select committee, but would be even more supportive of a standing committee.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:50): I rise in support of the motion of my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros for the establishment of a select committee into the March state election. Two weeks ago, I read an excellent opinion piece by former South Australian senator, Natasha Stott Despoja, about the state of politics in this country.

Let me say that you would not find a more dignified and dutiful political leader than Natasha. Her conduct inside and out of the Senate was impeccable, unlike many of her contemporaries. She referred to a report by the Museum of Australian Democracy and the University of Canberra that revealed distrust and disillusionment in politics is at an all-time high, surpassing 80 per cent in some communities. I quote some of her comments:

Politics should be an honourable profession. Recent events, including the prime ministerial churn, have disillusioned the most hardened citizen. Structural and behavioural change is necessary. We need to see members of Parliament working together respectfully across the political spectrum. We need the language and tone of the Parliament to be of a standard we are happy for children to observe and emulate. We need politicians to debate the merits of an issue, not insult the person. Our community is sick of privileged individuals practising behaviour that not only doesn't dignify them but would be deemed unethical or illegal in other workplaces.

She could easily be talking about the South Australian election of 2018. I have covered and observed campaigns both state and federal as a journalist since the Whitlam dismissal, but nothing compares with what I witnessed and experienced both as a candidate and as a media adviser for Nick Xenophon's SA-Best. This was the dirtiest I have seen. Ethics were non-existent. The lies, the deception, the dishonesty and the slander were astonishing, even for a seasoned veteran like me, from our political foes and—to my disappointment—even the conduct of sections of my own industry.

This was a brutal, no-holds-barred war, where the umpire, the state Electoral Commission, was feeble and toothless. My colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros has already explained her abject displeasure at the conduct and inaction of the SEC to dozens of her complaints; I will not delve any further. However, it does shine a light on what is wrong with this process of accountability—there isn't any.

That needs to change if politics is to win back the respect and trust of cynical voters. That can only happen with the cooperation of all the protagonists. Are we—are you—ready to make that change? Are you prepared to take a critical look at what went on unchecked and concede a radical shift in thinking, planning and strategy is required? Being dismissive, because that is what politics is all about, is a woeful cop-out. Politicians need to be looked upon as role models and leaders in their community, not backstabbing narcissists and opportunists. The tumultuous removal of the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister by his own party further diminished the public's confidence, while cynicism soared to levels not seen since 1973.

Today's Australian punctuated the view that politics can be a self-serving and vicious snake pit. Julie Bishop's older sister MaryLou said she was glad her sister failed to win the top job in the coup because, 'The brutality of politics is dreadful. It's soul-destroying.' Such is Julie Bishop's standing in the community that she was probably the outstanding option to salvage the government's shattered standing in the next federal poll.

When Nick Xenophon revealed to me his plan to return to state politics, he warned it would not be a clean fight, and that they would throw the proverbial kitchen sink at him and then some. What we got was a constant bombardment of septic waste. In the history of state politics, I cannot recall ever seeing the two major political parties conduct a venomous pincer action against the minnow eponymous party and its very popular leader. Both Labor and the Liberals resorted to the underhanded tactics and strategies to destroy the Xenophon factor that threatened to engulf them, costing them seats and perhaps even the chance to form government. They feared Nick, and the attacks became personal.

It is my view that election advertising needs to be policed and regulated before it is approved for use, much in the same way as commercial advertising standards are enforced by broadcasters. The ALP, with the help of the unions, ramped up the lies about the loss of education funding Nick was supposed to have cost schools over his support for Gonski 2.0. Never mind that he secured hundreds of millions more than the state was going to get and far less than what the federal Labor government had provided.

The Liberals played the scare card. According to them, Nick had done a deal with Jay Weatherill. This was, to quote one of Nick's campaign ads, a load of bull. Where was the SEC on that one? Or the corflutes on election day that had Nick under bedsheets with Jay, with the slogan, 'A vote for Nick is a vote for Labor'? Another lie they got away with. Then there was the one that Nick was against free trade—baloney. The scratchy cards were a disgrace and amplified what the Liberals really think about the inherent evils of gambling.

There is no real regulation of what is said and done across the broad spectrum of the media until the damage has been done. That is not how it should work. We remember Labor's robocalling 'mediscare' campaign in the last federal election. Who controls the content and assesses the accuracy of robocalling messages by political parties? They know they can get away with it, which is why they do it. They worked out how to manipulate Facebook by lodging objections when we posted fair and legitimate responses, resulting in our posts being blocked until there was a review. It was anyone's guess as to how long that was going to take.

My colleague has gone into some depth about the biggest ally of the Liberals, the Australian Hotels Association. Their relentless barrage of misinformation, lies and disruptions on election day to protect their life-destroying gambling interests was appalling and the lowest point reached. Just one media outlet in the whole country bothered to fact check the many outrageously false and questionable claims pumped out by the AHA and its CEO, Ian Horne. The Conversation investigation found much of just did not stack up to scrutiny. The media put the blow torch more on Nick Xenophon; he was a tall poppy there to be lopped.

Never mind the 16 years of Labor scandals, culminating in the highest power bills in the world, an energy crisis, Transforming Health, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, Oakden and other secret and shady deals only now emerging. The Liberal manifesto hardly got a grilling; they let others do the dirty work for them. The name of the game was 'Kill Nick'. Our candidates were subjected to dirty tricks, and outrageous and unchallenged slander, in order to undermine them and Nick Xenophon.

What I found incredulous was that some media outlets were prepared to run defamatory stories that had no substance or balance in the mistaken belief that anything goes in the heat of a torrid election campaign. We could well ask the question whether the SEC should also have oversight of media reporting when it contains bias and factual errors. I will highlight some glaring untold examples. I will begin with the seat of Giles, where our candidate, Tom Antonio, was up against the controversial sitting Labor member, Eddie Hughes, whose biggest supporter in Whyalla was the incumbent mayor, Lyn Breuer.

After the war in Hartley with Nick Xenophon, Giles was the ugliest battle of all. There is no love lost between Mr Hughes, Ms Breuer and Mr Antonio. Mr Hughes worked as an adviser to Ms Breuer when, as Labor's sitting member in Giles in 2011, she was quoted on the front page of The Australian as saying that the steel plant was doomed and would shut its doors regardless. Showing little faith in the town's resilience and its almost total dependence on the steel industry, her reckless comments understandably upset the then premier, Mike Rann, and industry minister, Tom Koutsantonis.

Now, if we fast forward to 2018, Labor is on the nose everywhere and looks like losing in its traditional heartland to Mr Antonio, a popular businessman and hardworking councillor who, as acting mayor, was a vital catalyst in saving the steelworks when Arrium went into liquidation. A week out from the election, with Mr Hughes at his side, Tom Koutsantonis gives the media in Whyalla a letter from a Colin Gillam, an executive of a mystery Chinese renewable energy company, SSE, in which Mr Gillam defames Mr Antonio, accusing him of endangering a $30 million solar investment in the town because of his conduct as a councillor, and that he was waging a vendetta because he was not elected mayor. I quote an excerpt from that letter:

You seem prepared to throw away any positive investment opportunities for the sake of pursuing your petty vendetta on the current mayor because you weren't elected the mayor.

You do not have the interests of Whyalla and the community at heart, only your self-interest.

Mr Antonio said he had not seen that letter, even though it was supposed to have been emailed to him, but someone leaked it. As for the claims made by Mr Gillam, they could not be substantiated. The media failed to check the facts and still published Mr Koutsantonis's scathing comments. So who gave him that letter? No media there bothered to ask or even investigate what transpired.

For the record—and it exists—Mr Antonio had acted appropriately in his responsibilities as a councillor regarding SSE by seconding a motion to report a possible act of wrongdoing, which is required by law. Mr Gillam has since disappeared from SSE, leaving their solar project on the edge of town beset with problems until only recently. Again, no proper investigation of the facts in reporting. It sounded like a good story only because it added spite and spice to the fire and brimstone unleashed on our candidate.

But Mr Koutsantonis and Jay Weatherill went further in claiming that Mr Antonio had to be excluded from meetings with the Arrium administrator, Mr Mark Mentha, because his behaviour threatened to derail negotiations for the sale of the steelworks. Again, the media reported it as fact; no checking was done. Nobody called Mark Mentha to see if this was correct; they just ran with it.

This was quite a serious accusation and no doubt, along with the SSE claim, they severely damaged Mr Antonio's character and, with it, his chances of winning Giles in the last days of the campaign. When it came to save the steelworks, Mr Antonio was its most passionate fighter. His mantra was, 'Closure is no option.' As the drama unfolded, it took Labor and the Premier almost two months to wake up to it, get their backsides there and show some support. Mr Marshall, in opposition, and other Liberals had long before beaten them there.

Here is the truth in a letter from the administrator, Mark Mentha, to Mr Antonio, dated 25 June 2018 that totally exposes Labor's below-the-belt treachery and deceit. I will quote some of it here:

Dear Tom. As lead administrator of Arrium Group Ltd I write to personally thank you and acknowledge you for your contribution to the Korda Mentha team in the saving of the Whyalla Steelworks and associated iron ore mines in the South Middleback Ranges.

Tom, from day one you understood the symbiotic relationship of Whyalla with Arrium and stood by the simple creed: 'Closure Is Not An Option' and you never strayed from that message—privately or publicly.

As the civic leader of Whyalla at the time you continually publicly lay bare the catastrophic consequences of a closure of the steelworks and mines, and accordingly kept the issue at the forefront of public policy and media. This in turn went a long way to keeping the issue front and centre in the minds of policy makers and influencers at both state and federal level. Even after stepping down as acting mayor you kept this mantra alive in your role as a city councillor.

He goes on:

The end result of a successful restructure and sale of Arrium could not have been achieved without contribution from many key stakeholders. Tom you played a critical part and all stakeholders, including the City of Whyalla and we the administrators will be forever grateful.

On behalf of Sebastian Hams, Scott Langdon and the entire Korda Mentha team—a big thank you.

Yours sincerely Mark Mentha, partner

I now seek leave to table this letter.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: His words could not be more compelling and a powerful endorsement of Mr Antonio, in total contrast to the sham portrayed by Mr Koutsantonis to save his mate's bacon. Mr Hughes did not go into that election as a cleanskin. Not many were aware that he had quite a notorious and colourful history with the police. We all knew that, but we chose not to play the man but make it a clean fight on policies. Yet they persisted with the mudslinging.

One voter went on Facebook and accused Mr Antonio of abusing her at a pre-poll. It was false and defamatory. Her story was published and broadcast on ABC as an 'allegation', even though there is a credible witness who can tell a totally different version of what took place because he heard what was said. On the back of all this, Mr Hughes just managed to fall over the line, but he cannot take much from it.

I hope that the media, particularly in the northern region, takes note. Mr Antonio's options for a libel action remain very much alive. He is running for mayor against Ms Breuer and he expects to be a target again. I urge Whyalla to support a man whose heart and soul is welded to the Steel City, not a person who had little faith in the survival of its biggest employer seven years ago.

Fake news also made an appearance. It took some investigative work to uncover the source of the bizarre gambit that encased our candidate for Morphett, Simon Jones. Curiously, it was first revealed in the public domain by a rival, the Independent Liberal Duncan McFetridge. As luck would have it, Duncan McFetridge somehow stumbled upon an obscure website, The Highlighter, which falsely accused Mr Jones of setting a garbage truck on fire. Days later, it again defamed him for speaking about the incident to The Advertiser.

An independent IT professional engaged by Mr Jones found that the site was linked to www.wcnvic.com, which is the home of the Western Community Network (WCN) in Melbourne. Who are they? Their website states:

The WCN is a growing group of Union and Labor activists that have come together to build a strong activist movement out in the West.

We hold monthly meetings that focus on Local, State and Federal issues as well as regular training aimed at providing personal growth and development to make members of the WCN more effective Labor and Union Activists.

Part of the Western Community Network membership criteria is that all members of the WCN must be a member of their industry union…[and the] Australian Labor Party.

They were totally false, unsubstantiated and defamatory fake news stories designed to trash Mr Jones and our fledgling party's reputation. Again, there was no interest from the media to track down the culprit. Why let the truth get in the way of a hatchet job? Well, Mr Jones has now commenced legal proceedings. Then our candidate for Davenport, Karen Hockley, outlaid a lot of money in the final week to mail out thousands of her pamphlets. They were duly delivered, but, strangely, Liberal Party brochures were placed in between. How could that happen?

In the northern suburbs, where Labor looked shaky in several seats, letter drops arrived from a phony resident by the name of Vicki from Parafield Gardens, dated 8 March. It warned her neighbours that SA-Best wanted to cut health services and spend it on people living in the country. It said, 'I've worked hard all my life. Why should I get less help at the expense of people in the country?' That is what Reggie Martin and the ALP thought about people in our regions crying out for improved health services. Their hypocrisy is mind-blowing. They all but ruined health. But one week from an election, where could you go to challenge this type of deception? I also seek leave to table that letter.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA Unions State Secretary, Joe Szakacs, was behind a costly scaremongering and smear campaign against Nick, blaming him for pension cuts and totally misleading and distorting the truth. The small number of affected pensioners were those with substantial assets, not the aged, disabled, veterans or war widows, as people were made to think.

Despite all this, SA-Best still managed an astonishing and unprecedented result for a first-time party. We secured two seats in the upper house and came second in the two-candidate preferred in 12 of the 47 lower house seats—five won by Labor and seven by the Liberals—and we did not do preference deals and we did not play dirty. These are just some of the untold stories. I could write a book on this and I probably will one day.

In closing, the point our motion wants to achieve in having a select committee into the last election is to clean up politics, make parties and candidates more accountable for what they do and say, impose stricter advertising and ethical standards that are actually regulated before and during campaigns, have full disclosure of political donors and, above all, to win back the trust and respect of the people who really matter: the voters. I commend this motion to the council, although I cannot envisage some of the parties having the stomach to confront the truth.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:11): I rise very briefly as the second speaker for the Greens, and spurred on by that particular contribution, just to raise a few points as to why the Greens wanted to support and see this select committee go forward. I have just listened to some interesting perspectives on history. I have some different perspectives on history.

When the racist fax incident occurred and was put into the media, citing potentially that Tom Antonio had been responsible for a racist fax some decades ago, I rang the person in this council who had taken action on the racist fax: the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. I do not know whether that racist fax is real or not. What I do know is that the Hon. Ian Gilfillan thought it was real at the time and serious enough to not only raise it in this place in question time but to refer it to the then attorney-general.

What I do know is that, in that phone conversation where I rang him to discuss the potential racist fax, Ian Gilfillan said to me, 'It's good that you called, Tammy. Nobody else thought to call.' I said, 'What do you mean? Didn't Nick Xenophon ring you to check?' Ian Gilfillan at that point said, 'No.' No checking had been done on whether or not Ian Gilfillan believed that fax to have been genuine.

I was also going to look on with great interest to the investigation of how Twiggy Forrest came to have a meeting with Nick Xenophon that resulted in an announcement less than an hour later by SA-Best in that campaign of a health policy—the first health policy that they actually declared for the state election campaign, which was to raise the smoking age—and whether or not there were any correlations to Twiggy Forrest and his links through his various NGOs/corporations/advocacy bodies with the polling that they had done on the state election just a week or so earlier that had recommended that Nick Xenophon would be a preferred premier. That polling had cited Nick Xenophon by name.

There may be nothing to it, but I was looking forward to hearing some answers as to whether or not Twiggy Forrest's polling was in any way done in consultation with any candidate that ran in the state election because it certainly has not been declared in the declarations that I have seen put forward by ECSA. I find it extraordinary that the first health policy announcement by SA-Best was one that accorded with Twiggy Forrest's views—one that he had sought to lobby many members, no doubt, of this place and certainly many candidates during the state election. I found that somewhat extraordinary.

On a final note, I will just reflect on a complaint that I made to the Electoral Commission that was upheld on 16 March this year, because I suspect you did not hear about it. It was a complaint against Nick Xenophon and his claims about the Greens' preferences. That complaint was upheld by ECSA on the night—literally about 5pm—of election eve. It stated:

I agree that they each contain a statement purporting to be a statement of fact: that the Greens have made a preference deal with the Liberal Party in relation to how-to-vote cards for tomorrow's election.

It noted my statutory declaration to the effect that no deal had been done. ECSA then stated:

With this submission, I am satisfied that the statement is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. I have sent the following request to Mr Xenophon:

I request that you delete or amend the advertisements immediately so that they no longer make this statement. I also request that you issue a media statement to the effect that the statement was inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, and that no such preference deal has been made. I request that you post the media statement on your Facebook page and the linked webpage.

I watched the Facebook page. Nothing went up. I looked at the media. Perhaps Nick had forgotten how to put out a press release, because we certainly did not see anything before or even in the days following the election.

This cuts both ways. SA-Best has just gotten up and made a lot of allegations using parliamentary privilege. A select committee could get to the bottom of this, but I suspect a select committee would also play politics. We deserve better than some of the allegations and the misuse and abuse of parliamentary privilege that has just been put before this place with this phony debate that has clearly been put forward today in the interests of continuing the campaign for Tom Antonio for the mayor of Whyalla.

It is extraordinary that Nick Xenophon never called Ian Gilfillan to check on that fact. I certainly look forward to the current Attorney-General perhaps finding that correspondence from Ian Gilfillan to the Attorney-General back in the day and investigating that particular incident to its fullest extent. With those few words, I commend the motion because I think this cuts both ways.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (18:17): Much as I have enjoyed the toing and froing between the Greens and SA-Best over the last few minutes, given the time of the evening, my comments will be mercifully brief. There will be other occasions when I will be able to address many of the issues honourable members have raised in this debate.

The position the government has adopted, and I think the Attorney-General has outlined, is that there is a review by the Electoral Commission. There are obviously other reviews going on in relation to aspects, particularly in relation to public funding, which I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has referred to as well. Clearly, it was the first time around for everybody and there are a number of lessons to be learnt from that. I think there is much we can learn. In any review that we conduct as a parliament, however, it would be productive if we look to see how we can improve the legislative framework to the extent that that is possible. That will always be a challenge.

I do not disagree with the position of the Hon. Ms Bonaros; I just have a different perspective. I think their view is that this is the worst, dirtiest and the most bitter, etc., campaign that they have ever seen. It might be the worst that they have ever seen, but trust me, as someone who has been through a number of others, it is in and of the average in terms of election campaigns. The difference this time around is that you are in and amongst it and you are having to absorb it and experience it. Those of us who have been in and amongst it for decades can assure you that some of the concerns you have expressed—that and much more—have been expressed over campaigns over many, many years.

It is becoming worse to an extent in relation to social media. In the last 10 years or so with social media it is much more difficult and it is much easier to create grief. But I have a differing perspective. I accept that that is a genuinely held view by the two members, but my genuinely held view is that, if there is a problem, it does not excuse the issues, but it is certainly not significantly different from a number of other campaigns that we have been engaged in over many years.

The last point I will make is that some members will be aware—and I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has raised this issue—that during the last parliament there were informal discussions, with me representing the then opposition and the former attorney-general representing the government and other members, about a reform of the parliamentary committee system. I have recently been authorised by the Premier, now that the budget is out of the way, to recommence those discussions, and I intend to have discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and, at various stages, with other interested crossbenchers in both houses regarding options for reform of the parliamentary committee system.

These will be informal in nature, firstly, to see what the various options are. Ultimately, if there is to be reform and if there can be agreement in terms of that reform, any reform has to go through the parliament by way of legislative amendment. Part of that would be whether one of the committees would have an ongoing role in terms of monitoring a committee, and if that were the case it would mean the terms of reference would be generic rather than specific and targeted in relation to that proposed select committee, perhaps more akin to what occurs in the federal parliament. With those few words I indicate the government will not support this motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:20): I thank honourable members for their contributions. At the outset I would like to indicate that I am more than happy to come back to the Hon. Tammy Franks with responses in relation to some of the issues she has raised today. I agree 100 per cent that this does cut both ways. I have never denied that, and I do not think my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo has ever denied that. Personally, I agree with that 100 per cent, so I am happy to come back and provide some information in relation to the issues the member has raised. Obviously I do not have that at hand now, but I will do that.

Whilst I am grateful for the contributions, I cannot say I am terribly surprised at the position of the government and the opposition with respect to the motion. When I last spoke on the matter I indicated that I would bring it to a vote today: that said, and in light of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in this place and the opposition's openness to revisiting this issue, I indicate that I will not bring this matter to a vote today. If the opposition means what they say—

The PRESIDENT: I don't know if you can.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I can seek leave to conclude my remarks, I understand; I have sought advice. So if the opposition means what it says, namely that it remains open to an inquiry subject to the findings in the report of the Electoral Commission, then I too am open to deferring the vote with a view to waiting for that report.

I am certain the report will flag the need for an inquiry, and in fact the Hon. Mark Parnell has just indicated as much. What we ought to establish is an ongoing committee that inquires into and reports on the outcome of each and every state election. That is something SA-Best fully supports. If it is good enough for the Electoral Commission to report into an election then it ought to be good enough for us.

In my view—and it is my view—my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo hit the nail on the head when he talked about the current mood amongst political voters and observers. I think the general public is sick of it. Many of us are sick of it. I know I am certainly sick of it, and I think if it were not for preference deals the results of the election would reflect that.

Unlike the major parties I do not underestimate the power of voters. We have all seen voters shifting away from the left side of politics and from the right side of politics because they are sick of politicians caring more about their own interests than the community's interests. That is fine, they can keep it up, because as far as I am concerned our party, SA-Best, and Centre Alliance will be there to greet voters and welcome them to the centre of politics with open arms. With those few words, and as indicated, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.