HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (CONTENTS OF WRIT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2010.)

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:14): On behalf of the government I oppose the second reading of this bill. Section 48 of the Electoral Act 1985 sets out the content of the writ. Section 48(2) provides that a writ must fix the date and time for the close of rolls and the date for the nomination, the polling and the return of the writ. Section 48(3) provides that the date fixed for the close of rolls must be, if not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the date falling 10 days after the date on the issue of the writ; or, if a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the date falling on the day next following the Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. Section 48(4) provides that the date fixed for the nomination must be a date falling not less than three days nor more than 14 days after the date fixed for the close of the rolls.

According to the member for Fisher, the purpose of this bill is to bring forward the closing date for the nomination of candidates. The bill does this by indirectly reducing the earliest date for the nomination. It amends section 48(3)(a) to fix the date on which the rolls close at seven days (rather than 10 days) after the issue of the writ.

The government's policy, which is consistent with State Strategic Plan target T5.4 (increase the proportion of eligible young South Australians (18 to 19 years) enrolled to vote to better the Australian average by 2014), is to maximise the time available to people to enrol to vote at a state election after the election is called. The government believes that potential voters, particularly young adults, should have as long as possible to enrol to vote after an election is called, as this will encourage participation in the democratic process.

Consistent with this, the government's Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2009 amended section 48(3) to fix the date for the close of rolls at 10 days from the issue of the writ. Prior to this amendment, the close of rolls could be fixed at between seven and 10 days from the issue of the writ. This is to provide the maximum workable time frame within which a person can enrol to vote.

The member for Fisher's bill is contrary to this objective. It reduces the time that potential voters have to enrol to vote once an election is called. This can only have the effect of denying some people their democratic right to vote.

In between all those sections and minimum and maximum days the message is that, while the government respects the good intention of the member for Fisher in bringing this bill forward, it considers that likely candidates deserve slightly less consideration in this event than the unfortunate number of people who do not bother to enrol or change their address until an election is called.

We know that those of us present in this chamber are always conscious of our obligations under the Electoral Act, but sadly not all the rest of the community is, and for many people the calling of an election is the wake-up call for them to get their affairs in order so that they can participate in the important process of voting in our democracy.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:17): I want to speak on this very strongly. I strongly support the member for Fisher on this issue. As this house knows, I have only participated in one election, but it was very clear to me from that one—

The Hon. R.B. Such: You won it!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you. I was fortunate to participate successfully, which was terrific. This is very important in more remote regions. In the electorate of Stuart—and Madam Speaker, I am sure this is very true in the electorate of Giles as well—there are a lot of people who do everything properly with regard to registering for postal votes, get their applications in on time, do everything that is requested of them, and yet it is impossible for them to get their vote in on time.

That happens for many reasons, often because they just do not get their postal vote back to them in time. It is not really the Electoral Commission's fault; in fact it is not the government's fault. It is not anybody's fault, because the system is set up at the moment so that it is just not possible, but if we do not change this rule then it will be the government's fault. We have to change this for many reasons.

There are people who live in parts of the state where they might only get the mail once a week. They receive their mail, they put their postal vote application in on time—and in fact, in many cases I have been told of they are on the regular recurring postal vote system—they receive their postal vote in the mail, but they cannot put it back into the mail for another week because they only have a weekly delivery, and by then they have missed their chance. The timeline is just too tight.

There are people who go away for holidays. I am sure that is not just a country issue; it would be happening all over the place. People who register in advance actually say to the Electoral Commission, 'Look, we are going to be away. We are going to be overseas for two weeks.' I know there is a system where you can go to the embassy or some other designated point and place your vote, even overseas, but some holidays are not worked that way.

One of the most important issues for me in the electorate of Stuart—and I know, Madam Speaker, this would be true in Giles as well—is people who are working away. They are working in remote locations, and there are people from all over country South Australia (and, I am sure, in the city as well, but it is more a country issue) who work, very often in new mines, building powerlines or putting in generators or watering systems, and doing all sorts of remote work that is going on all over the place, and they just cannot get their mail. They put in an application for a postal vote in time, they plan ahead, they are responsible, they know that they are going to be away, but they are not near a post office, they are not in phone range, and there is absolutely nothing they can do.

This situation could be fixed if there was more time in the process. Certainly, last time around the government waited to the very last minute to visit the Governor to get the writ issued. I am not an overly suspicious person, but I have no doubt that that was quite a deliberate ploy so that some of these people would miss out and not be able to vote. One of the differences in our position is that, typically—and, certainly, I do not take anyone's vote for granted—people in the country and in the more remote areas are more likely to be voting Liberal and less likely to be voting Labor.

That might make me more passionate about this issue than you, Madam Speaker. However, I think the reality is that every single one of us here in the South Australian Parliament, whether we are Liberal, Labor, Green or Independent, regardless of our political preference should defend vehemently the right of every South Australian who is eligible to place their vote.

Becoming ineligible because the system and the timing that we have in place do not allow them to vote, even if they put an application in on time, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable that this parliament would deliberately allow that to happen. We should change the rules in whatever way we need to so that those we know are going to run into trouble, through no fault of their own, still get to vote. So, I very, very strongly support the member for Fisher in this motion.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:22): I thank the member for Stuart for his contribution. We know that with postal ballots people have a bit of extra time to get them in, but what happened at the last election was that because candidates have up to 14 days to register that put tremendous pressure on the Electoral Commission and also affected when the ballot papers could be printed and posted.

A lot of electors do not understand that the Electoral Commission cannot print ballot papers, obviously, until the list of candidates has been finalised. My argument is that, at the moment, candidates have up to 14 days to register as a candidate. If you do not know that you are going to be a candidate well in advance—and we know when the election is as it is set now by law—if you do not know when the election is and cannot get organised to register within a week, then I think there is something sadly astray with your political ambitions.

A lot of people think that once the election campaign has started all candidates are known or would have nominated. I think that is a logical assumption by people, given that they know that the election date is set. They know four years in advance when the election will be. At the last state election, I think there were approximately 100,000 postal voters. I believe that some people are opting for that for convenience, rather than through necessity, but that is their democratic right. The current election timetable allows between three and 14 days before the close of nominations, and the maximum is simply too long. This amendment brings it forward to seven days.

I think the points made by the member for Stuart are valid. All I am trying to do is ensure that people are able to cast a valid vote by postal ballot. In terms of the argument that the member for Reynell put forward about disenfranchising young people (she typically focused on them), the government could easily address that issue by allowing 16 and 17 year olds to enrol to vote on a voluntary basis, if they wish. Those people can already join the parties at that age, but they cannot vote.

I do not know why it is that South Australia, which has led the world in many voting reforms, including for women and Aboriginal people (I will be talking about that later), cannot extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds on a voluntary basis, if they wish to. I do not think the argument that young people would be disenfranchised under my proposal really stacks up.

I am not sure—the member did not indicate it—whether the Electoral Commissioner had been asked to comment on this or whether the government's opposition to my measure comes purely from within the Labor Party itself. If the date I am suggesting (or the days) is seen as too limiting, then presumably the commissioner would have a view on that and could have put forward a view. However, I am none the wiser, because the member did not refer to any consideration offered by the Electoral Commissioner.

All I am trying to do is make a system which improves democratic participation. I am certainly not in favour of anything that removes or reduces that. All I am trying to do is make the system more efficient and effective in terms of democratic participation and allowing the Electoral Commission to get the names of candidates printed on the ballot paper so that people can exercise their right to vote in the state election.

My understanding is that many people did not get their ballot papers in time and were unable to cast an effective vote. I understand that the government is going to oppose this. I do not intend to divide on it, but I would urge the government and the opposition to have a look at this measure or something similar—it can always be improved, of course—at a subsequent time. I still believe that this bill has merit, but I understand that the government is going to oppose it, so it will not get up.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT