HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:42): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Following the results of the 2013 federal election, there have been widespread calls to reform the way preferences act in proportional representation voting systems throughout Australia. These have been generated by preference-harvesting behaviour, which has seen some candidates elected to the Senate with significantly fewer primary votes than other, ultimately, unelected candidates. Gaming of this system has resulted in there being a degree of a lucky dip in becoming an upper house member. I believe that these outcomes are undemocratic. This capacity to manipulate the system needs to be addressed. Can I say also that I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to have a good look at the ministerial statement I have just given and the tabled document, because that might be of interest as well.

This bill makes some minor changes to the act. They are not a complete solution to the problem. I encourage discussions between the houses to see if the bill can be improved. There is a belief that, given sufficient time, the solution may well rest with some variation of optional preferential voting or other reform of the preferential voting system. Given the time in the current electoral cycle, we are not likely to be in a position to progress a wholesale reform of this nature, though the government is not closing the door. I repeat: we are not closing the door. In particular, we would be very happy in having a chat about Saint-Laguë.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will come back to it. Anyway, we are definitely not closing the door; it is quite open and hospitable if you want to walk through it. There remains a need at least to take targeted measures that will reduce the capacity of non-registered groups and candidates to harvest preferences. This bill achieves this by increasing the nomination requirements so that a single candidate finds it harder. The bill requires a single candidate for the House of Assembly to obtain the support and signature of 20 electors and a candidate for the Legislative Council 100 electors, as opposed to the current requirement of two. This will encourage quality candidates who have reasonable support and backing within the community, we hope.

Further, only political parties and groups may lodge a voting ticket and hence obtain an 'above the line' voting ticket square. However, if candidates group together, they must have the supporting signatures of different electors. If two or more candidates have the same signatures, that signature will not be counted for the purposes of making the nomination.

As a consequence, electors will have to provide a preference for every candidate below the line on the ballot paper should they wish to vote for an ungrouped independent candidate or a group whose candidates did not provide supporting signatures of at least 200 different electors upon making nomination. Further, the bill will also reduce the number of descriptive words that may be provided adjacent to a candidate or group name on the Legislative Council ballot paper from five or less to two words. Finally, the ballot paper will be required to list candidates and groups in an order beginning with registered political party groups, Independent groups and then, lastly, Independent candidates.

I advise that I also propose to increase by regulation the nomination fee for single candidates from $450 to $2,000. We believe that, in the available time frame, this minimalist approach taken in this bill will address the problem to some degree, but will not be the ultimate solution. I repeat: we will be open to discussion upon this bill between the houses. I commend the bill, and hopefully some very good amendments similar to the ministerial statement, to the house.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (17:48): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) Amendment Bill 2013. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the parliament. I indicate that we will be supporting this bill through the house. We, like the government, believe that reform is due. It is interesting to note that the Attorney-General describes his own bill as a 'minimalist approach' and that it is not to be taken as the ultimate solution, and we agree with that. However, we do commend the Attorney-General for bringing this, because there is no doubt that some reform is needed.

We do reserve our right between the houses to consider any suggestions for amendment from the government, or perhaps from ourselves, that we will consider in due course, but I think both the government and the opposition are in agreement that there is some opportunity to reform the Legislative Council voting system. We look forward to continuing discussions over the coming weeks.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:49): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) Amendment Bill 2013. As our leader has outlined, this is a bill which the opposition favours in its thrust and as an attempt to reform some of the ills which were exposed particularly at the 2013 election. Can I say generally that it never ceases to amaze me that we have to have very clear laws to protect all of us in ensuring that we have a democratically elected government at all the levels which operate and which give us the freedoms and secure the freedoms that we have, so it is important that we get it right.

The stakes are high. The opportunity for certain persons to be able to aggregate and form governments is a very high prize. It is a very high level of responsibility, so we do need to ensure that two things happen. One is that as best as possible we do elect responsible people to undertake the role as members of parliament and, if they have the privilege of office, as a member of a government. The second is that as best as possible we ensure that those who are elected reflect a process which enables men and women over the age of 18 years to have their voice heard and to have a selection which at the end gives them a team of people as representatives that is fair in that assessment.

What becomes clear is that, probably because the stakes are so high, each election there is usually some exposure of a weakness. Sometimes it is just something at a machinery level; sometimes it is much more penetrating in its application. What happened at the 2013 federal election clearly raised some concerns. Some who had nominated for parliament relatively easily were able to secure a very, very low primary vote, even far less than 1 per cent, and still achieve a seat in the parliament. Of course, many people were left shell shocked as to how that could occur.

The classic example in that election was the election of Mr Ricky Muir, who is the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party representative. Mr Muir received a primary vote of 0.51 per cent, and through preferences with other micro parties was able to achieve a quota of 14.28 per cent. To do this, Mr Muir received preferences from the following 25 parties, nine of which polled higher than he did. I will list them quickly: the WikiLeaks Party, Rise Up Australia Party, Palmer United Party, Australian Sex Party, Shooters and Fishers Party, Democratic Labor Party, Animal Justice Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party, Katter's Australian Party, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, Australian Independents, Senator Online, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, Bullet Train for Australia, Drug Law Reform Australia, Stable Population Party, Building Australia Party, Australian Voice Party, Bank Reform Party, Stop CSG, Citizens Electoral Council, Socialist Equality Party, and two other Independent groupings.

I have to confess I did not read avidly the published policies of each of these parties. I am not quite sure what the difference is between the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party. Perhaps they have some overlapping policies. In any event, there is no question that people have the opportunity to stand, but to then climb on the back of other candidates, including those who get a greater first preference poll than you do and actually end up in the parliament, does obviously expose a weakness in the system we have.

Other examples include the situation in Western Australia for the election of Mr Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party. He received a primary vote of just 0.23%. He had half the score of Mr Ricky Muir in a percentage of 1 per cent. Clearly, Western Australia is in some other difficulty at the moment as far as their electoral commission goes, because they seem to have lost a whole lot of votes. Whatever happens there, again it still exposed a problem that we have.

Essentially, the capacity for people to game (as they describe this harvesting of votes) has been exposed. Some would argue, 'Well, they are the rules; that's what applies.' The parties that missed out on the opportunity of having a member of the parliament, like here in South Australia—the Australian Labor Party lost their sitting member, Senator Don Farrell, and he will have to retire in June next year if he does not get someone else tapped on the shoulder to go willingly.

I think it is fair to acknowledge that the major parties had probably dropped the ball; they had not actually been keeping alert as to how mischievous some could be to be able to work a system in such a manner. So, this is no reflection on those who are members of organised political parties, but the reality is that I think we should have been more alert to this. The fact that those who are nominating only hoping to get a few hundred votes, be able to survive that process and then be able to have a paid agent—a negotiator—to then secure the opportunity for the preferences to flow and the aggregate to be acquired, I think is some reflection on those of us who are members of major political parties.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the public disquiet in some quarters and outrage in others that people should be able to acquire that. I did note, with interest, the Hon. Nick Xenophon has had a bit to say on this matter as well; he has represented the cause of no poker machines and has had a career here in South Australia and then in the Senate. Again, issues have been raised by people across the spectrum as to the concerns raised.

The Attorney has outlined the specific provisions of this bill; each aspect has some merit. I thank him for identifying the proposed prescribed nomination fee at $2,000; it was a matter I would have otherwise canvassed in committee. We think that the general objectives which will provide that: only registered political parties and groups of two or more Independents can have above-the-line voting square; candidates fielded by political parties need to find 100 electors to nominate a candidate (however, these may be the same 100 nominators for all candidates in their group); the single Independent candidate who wants a below-the-line listing will need to find 100 electors to nominate them—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt; I just need to get a minister to extend beyond 6pm and then I will come straight back to you.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Piccolo]


Ms CHAPMAN: —and that if a group of two or more Independents wants a voting ticket square above the line then they must find 100 electors per candidate to nominate them who have not nominated any other candidate; that the Independent candidates may only use two words to describe themselves on the ballot paper in addition to the word 'Independent'; and finally, that the registered political parties would appear on the ballot paper before Independent groups.

The discussions, at the invitation of the Attorney, will continue. We are pleased to have the invitation to do that. I am sure that other interested parties and stakeholders will also wish to present their position to the government, and we will be happy to discuss those matters with them.

Can I leave with one other matter which is not specifically covered by the bill, but which I think is more a machinery matter that comes out of these elections. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I had difficulty fitting the ballot paper for the Senate into the polling booth. Laid out flat, it sort of went up each side about half a foot, or 15 or 20 centimetres. I am told that we were lucky in South Australia, and that if you were in New South Wales, it was up over the edge of the wall and dripping over the top, it was so long. This is a practical thing. If we do achieve these reforms, that will have some effect, I am hoping, on the redesign of the ballot paper.

Some of that might be avoided, but if it is not, then I think the Electoral Commission needs to be on notice that we need either a wider facility to be able to examine the ballot paper for the purposes of voting or a redesigned system so that at least it can fit in the polling booth when we go to vote. I just ask that the Electoral Commissioner take that on notice. It is not a matter that requires legislation. I just indicate that I wish to briefly go into committee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:00): Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their contributions. This is one of those happy moments where the parliament is all of a single mind, really, about trying to address what I think 90 per cent of citizens in South Australia would agree is a genuine problem. The constructive attitude that has been brought to that actually does demonstrate that the parliament is capable of doing good things when people of goodwill actually focus on the same problem.

I just close by repeating that, on behalf of the government, I am very happy to have conversations with the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader and other people who might be wishing to talk about any detail in this bill that we are now about to vote on but I would also invite them to please turn their minds to the implications of the bill that I tabled. Consider over the next week whether or not you can see your way clear to giving support to that, because I guarantee you that there is a big difference between dealing with the problem at its roots and merely addressing symptoms of the problem.

To some degree, the bill we are putting through today does address the symptoms. It does offer tweaking of the current system but, as I said in my second reading remarks, it is not a fundamental solution to the problem. It will ameliorate elements of the problem, but I cannot stand here and say that I can guarantee that the bill I introduced that is before the parliament presently is going to solve all our problems. It will make some of those problems more difficult for people to create, but it does not actually stop them creating problems, if they are prepared to be intrepid enough to spend $2,000 and get 200 signatures and so on.

It creates a number of hurdles, yes, but does it actually address the root and branch problem? Not really. The root and branch problem is the unhappy interaction between an exhaustive preferential system and proportional representation. Anyway, I have probably said enough about all of that. Again, I thank both the other speakers.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: This relates to the question of consultation with the Electoral Commissioner on these reforms. Attorney, could you just confirm that that has occurred, and that it is achievable that the reforms be applied for the forthcoming election?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I invite the deputy leader just to put all her questions on the Notice Paper and I undertake to get back to her between the houses on all of them.

Ms CHAPMAN: The first question was about the consultation with the Electoral Commissioner. If it could be confirmed between the houses in a letter, or however you wish, that she is able to undertake the necessary reforms in the event that the bill goes through in its current form, that would be excellent. I have asked the question on clause 1 and the minister has nodded; he can get the answer to us in between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Ms CHAPMAN: Section 139(2) of the Electoral Act currently allows for regulations to fix fines of up to $750 for the contravention of a regulation. The bill proposes to increase this to $5,000. My questions are:

1. How many fines are currently prescribed by regulation under this power? If there are none, why is it necessary for this fine-making capacity to be increased from $750 to $5,000?

2. Why are the regulation-making powers being made more specific than under the current section 139 of the act? Is it anticipated that this will provide any further regulation-making power than what is currently available?

3. What matters are intended to be included in subsection (2)(e) of proposed section 139, and what would the commissioner's discretion relate to?

I ask, in the spirit of this debate and of some workable dialogue and cooperation, that the Attorney takes those questions on notice and provides us with answers to the same, which will allow the expeditious conclusion of this debate today.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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