HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2009. Page 2566.)

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (11:23): I rise to indicate support for the second reading of this bill. A fair and democratic system has been the bedrock of South Australian governments for a majority of our state's history. This state used to be one of the most politically progressive places in the world. Amongst other achievements, in 1894, it became the second place in the world to recognise the right of women to vote and stand for parliament (I believe the first place was New Zealand); it was the first Australian state to restrict individuals to a single vote per person; and, in 1856, it gave all male citizens a vote. This state was also the first part of the British empire to embrace secularism by ending, in 1851, formal aid to religion; in 1876, it was the first British territory outside the United Kingdom to legalise trade unions; in 1966, it introduced the first anti-discrimination act in Australia, which made discrimination on the basis of race an offence; and, in 1975, it was the first state to decriminalise homosexual relations between men in private.

Despite this initial progress towards an open polity that values rightful equality and participation of its citizenry, the state in recent times has unfortunately lapsed into archaic ideas about the role of citizens in public debate. Increased public ignorance of our system of governance has been compounded by systematic defunding of electoral education programs in schools and the community. We are now in a dire situation where much of the population does not understand how governments are formed in our country, the voting system or the division of powers and federal governments. This adds to a growing cynicism that gradually reinforces the growing apathy about politics in Australia. As government centralises, decisions are being made further away from the people whom they concern.

The quickening media cycle fuels the degradation of public debate and presents Australian politics in all its petty infighting, populist pork-barrelling and self-interested manoeuvres. All the while the public loses faith in the democratic system, which once represented a ray of hope that all South Australians could enjoy equality and protection under the law.

As we consider the bill before us, it presents us with an opportunity to regain some of that initial inspiration that the state's founding residents had about the future of governance across this land. In the words often quoted from Abraham Lincoln, government should be 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. Governance, and the process that puts it in place, should be as transparent as possible. This is an important opportunity for reform and one that we should all be embracing.

To this end, I will move a range of amendments to this bill. The government has proposed adding an elector's date of birth to the electoral roll instead of an age range. I will move an amendment to stop this change. It will be potentially damaging for such personal information, in addition to an elector's name and address, to be made available on the electoral roll. Although the bill aims to restrict access to the roll, it still allows this information to be publicly accessible, and as such places virtually no limitations on the information a member of the public could access for their own personal agenda. I strongly believe the information currently included on the roll is sufficient for the purposes of an election and requires no change. Stopping this amendment would also prevent an endless procession of birthday cards to voters from their MP.

The government initially proposed banning the display of electoral advertisements outright. I am glad to see that it has moved away from this oppressive restriction of political expression. However, I still have concerns about banning electoral corflutes on road sides and related areas. I acknowledge that there are some South Australian residents who find the corflutes distracting or annoying or simply get upset at being reminded that they have to vote. However, they are an effective way of helping a candidate achieve greater name and visual recognition than they would otherwise receive through traditional media sources. In my opinion, banning corflutes would unreasonably favour the incumbent government and hurt the chances of new candidates wanting to build a profile for themselves.

Kris Hanna moved a series of amendments to the bill in the lower house, and I will take up one of his suggestions to limit the number of corflutes per candidate or party to 200 per electorate. In my mind this would put candidates on a level playing field and retain their opportunity to have a regular visual remainder of their candidacy. It should also be stressed that the restriction on corflutes favours more cashed up candidates and parties who can choose electronic media for their advertising. Corflutes give the small parties and individual Independents the opportunity to get publicity.

I will also adopt another of Kris Hanna's amendments to introduce optional preferential voting. However, my amendment would also extend this option to House of Assembly elections. It is my belief that voters should have the choice to vote for their chosen candidates or choose not to vote for a particular candidate. My amendment would allow voters to nominate as many or as few candidates as they wish to support. This would mean that voters would be able to show their disdain for a number of candidates by not directing any preferences towards them at all.

It seems unreasonable that a voter who nominates only a few preferred candidates is currently treated in the same way as a voter who lodges a blank ballot paper. My amendment would ensure that the number of people who nominate a preference would be the same number of votes counted. This has become increasingly relevant for voters who are not aware that they must number every box for any of their preferences to count. Donkey voting is an unfortunate part of our electoral culture, and it generally occurs when voters have no interest in lodging a considered vote and instead number directly from top to bottom, regardless of the actual preference for candidates.

An innovative method used in Tasmania to counteract this is the Robson rotation, upon which my amendment is based. It would ensure that there is an equal number of ballot papers that favour each of the candidates contesting the respective House of Assembly election in distribution across the electorate. Each candidate would be listed in the top position as many times as any of their competitors, which effectively will offset the donkey vote. It seems ridiculous that in this day and age of digital printing we would pursue an electoral system that leaves swings of up to 3 per cent to chance. Such a swing could change a government for no other reason than that party received the top position on the ballot paper by the luck of the draw.

None of us would leave legislative changes to chance, and yet we have an electoral system which does exactly that for governments. The provisions of my amendment specify that the various ballot papers for an electorate would be distributed randomly so as to ensure parity across the electorate of each candidate's favourable ballot paper.

In conversation with representatives of different parties and Independents, some of you have asked whether this would make it difficult for voters to cast a vote who choose to follow a candidate's how-to-vote card. My response is that it is the responsibility of each party or candidates to educate voters on how to vote for the candidate, not to educate them to blindly follow a pattern of numbers.

If an effect of this amendment is to slow down the speed with which voters fill out their ballot papers, as a result of having to spend a little extra time in considering how to follow the how-to-vote card, then I welcome it all the more. I, for one, believe voters should take their selection of candidates seriously. Any objections to the amendment on the grounds that it will confuse voters who do not want to think about how they are voting shows the true motivations of the member. Administratively, it is not difficult to operate as the whole processing and randomisation of ballots can be done at the time of print.

I will also be considering several other amendments that are aimed at revitalising political parties, not least my own. Active involvement in parties has been declining. Membership numbers are low in all parties and, although Independents have become extremely popular in recent times, it is only political parties that can develop a comprehensive alternative vision that goes beyond the magpie politics of Independents who simply do not have the resources to move beyond single issues. I look forward with anticipation to hearing the various amendments that will be put forward from my fellow members over the course of the debate on this bill. There will, no doubt, be a number of contentious proposals, and I welcome the debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. M. Gazzola.

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