HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL PROCESS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the following matters related to the general election of 20 March 2010—

(a) the use of bogus how-to-vote cards and other election day material to mislead voters and measures that may be necessary to ensure that electors are not misled;

(b) provision of voting services including voting by post and services to residents of declared institutions;

(c) the integrity of the roll, including the identification of voters presenting and measures for subsequent verification; and

(d) management of the election by the electoral commission, including the powers and resources available to the commission.

2. That standing order No.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 No.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 12 May 2010.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (19:47): The Hon. Ms Bressington, in speaking on the last item of business to establish the Budget and Finance Committee, was saying that Independents have a mind of their own and that we should not presume what they are going to do. I certainly hope that the Independents and crossbenchers on this occasion will demonstrate that they are prepared to consider reasonable amendments to terms of reference for select committees. The government is not opposed to the establishment of this select committee, with the amendments I have foreshadowed.

It is a common practice of one of the standing committees of the commonwealth parliament to make a review after every election, and there is nothing to be feared by the government or the Labor Party reviewing matters arising from the election. I accept that there is community concern over the use of how-to-vote cards, which were in my view entirely lawful and proper and were authorised by the Labor Party. However, we have accepted that there is community concern about that and we have already moved to amend the Electoral Act to ensure that no how-to-vote card could be distributed advocating a No.1 vote for someone without that candidate's consent.

We do, however, seek to amend the terms of reference of this select committee to slightly broaden them, not to make too great an expansion but to allow all matters to be considered. I note that the Hon. Ms Vincent also has an amendment in similar terms to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the terms of reference. I have a concern that, by drawing up very narrow terms of reference, it would run the risk that matters that come before the committee could not be properly examined by the committee. A number of members have said that they want the committee to be short, sharp and shiny and wrapped up in fairly short order, particularly given that a number of members have indicated an intention to amend the Electoral Act. We have a bill being introduced tonight to that effect, and I understand that, and it is certainly not the government's view or intention that this committee, if established, would be inordinately long.

We are not looking to have any sort of Ashbourne style, half a decade long extravaganza. What we want to do, by making very modest amendments, is to make sure that the evidence that comes before the committee is not ruled out of order or outside the terms of reference. I indicate that the government supports the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Ms Vincent for that very reason: we want to make sure that there is not any ambiguity.

A number of members have indicated that they do not think that anything in the terms of reference would preclude raising matters relating to previous elections, and I would be happy if they want to put that view on the record. It is certainly normally the case that there is a reasonable amount of latitude in questions but, nonetheless, one cannot be sure of that. The terms of reference here are quite narrow. The two amendments I have foreshadowed are to add the words 'and previous elections' after 'the date of the recent general election,' and to add 'any other relevant matter'.

In relation to the first amendment, as I have said, I think we all want the inquiry to be expeditious. However, matters may certainly arise regarding the last one or two elections in particular. It is extremely unlikely, I would have thought, and it is certainly not the government's intention, that we will be talking about the 1979 election or things from a long time ago.

However, if we are going to be looking at how-to-vote cards, as well as postal voting, resourcing of the commission and the general conduct of the election, it would seem extraordinarily incongruous to me that you would restrict that only to the most recent general election and not consider what might have happened in previous elections in recent memory.

If one is to say that the postal voting system on this occasion was inadequate or that there were problems with it, or that there was a problem regarding confusion over how-to-vote cards, it seems to me a fairly unusual proposition to say that you cannot compare what happened on 20 March 2010 with what happened in March 2006 or March 2002, because that would obviously be pretty germane to the discussion. If you are going to look at a general election in isolation, you are certainly not going to be benchmarking it against other elections and what might have occurred in those elections.

Then, 'any other relevant matter' is a very standard provision in select committee terms of reference—and I draw honourable members' attention to 13 occasions in the previous parliament: Select Committee into Unlawful Practices Raised by the Auditor-General in his Annual Report, 2003-2004, paragraph (g) all other related matters; Certain Matters Relating to Horse Racing in South Australia, paragraph (g) any other relevant matter; Select Committee into the Collection of Property Taxes by State and Local Government, Including Sewerage Charges by SA Water, (f) any other related matters; Conduct of PIRSA in Fishing of Mud Cockles in Marine Scalefish and Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fisheries—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan has the floor.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —thank you, Mr President—paragraph (e) any other relevant matter; Select Committee into Families SA, paragraph (g) any other related matter; Impact of Peak Oil on South Australia, (j) any other related matter; Pricing, Refining, Storage and Supply of Fuel in South Australia, (j) any other matters; Proposed Sale and Redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital Site, (f) other matters that the committee considers relevant; SA Water, (m) any other matters; Staffing, Resourcing and Efficiency of the South Australia Police, (k) other relevant matters; Taxi Industry in South Australia, (h) any other relevant matter; and Taxpayer Funded Government Advertising Campaigns, (d) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.

The Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke Affair did not have a reference 'other related matters' but what it did have was 21 different terms of reference to make sure that everything was covered. The house did, in fact, amend the terms of reference because it wanted to add a couple of things that had not been canvassed in the first terms of reference because they were too narrow. The last select committee to which I draw honourable members' attention is Selection Process for the Principal at the Elizabeth Vale Primary School, (f) any other relevant matter.

So, there we have 13 select committees established by the previous parliament in which there were terms of reference specifying 'other relevant matters' or 'other matters the committee considers relevant' or, indeed, 'any other matters'. I draw honourable members' attention to today's Notice Paper and the motion that was moved by the Hon. Michelle Lensink that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertake a review into South Australia's population strategy. Part 7 of that term of reference is 'any other matter', not 'any other relevant matter'. So, for the opposition, Family First or any of the crossbenchers to say that that amendment of mine needs to be defeated is absolutely extraordinary and indicates to me that this committee is certainly intended to be a kangaroo court.

I appeal particularly to the crossbenchers. The government has taken a very cooperative and collaborative approach. We have said that we are not opposing the establishment of this committee. We do not believe that the government or the Labor Party has anything to hide or to be ashamed of. We agree that there might be matters which arise out of this committee which can assist with the proper conduct of elections in this state in the future.

All we are asking the council to do is to add that the committee be able to consider previous elections and that it have, as part of its terms of reference, a paragraph that in some form is in virtually every other select committee terms of reference that this council passes. The test here is very clear: if the opposition, Family First and the crossbenchers defeat my amendments, I think it will be very clear that this is simply a political kangaroo court.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It would be clear evidence that this committee would simply be a political stunt and that it is not about improving the electoral process in South Australia.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The Hon. Ms Bressington interjects that this is like every other select committee: that is not the case. The government is not opposing—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, I certainly can count to 26, the Hon. Mr Stephens would be aware.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: 26?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes, 26 members of the lower house, thus giving a majority government. You should try it some time.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Stephens will sit very quiet and take his punishment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Do we need an adjournment for the Hon. Mr Stephens to compose himself? The test is quite simple here: the government has indicated that it is happy to take a cooperative approach. We are not trying to say that this committee should not be established. All we are aiming for is two very simple amendments, similar to the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Ms Vincent, and I will be quite stunned if that gets defeated by the opposition. It is a simple amendment designed to slightly expand the terms of reference to ensure there is no ambiguity about what the committee is able to consider.

If the opposition and crossbenchers combine to defeat my amendments, which is, I think, what most of them have indicated that they intend, then it will be very clear that this is not about improving the electoral process in South Australia, it is not about getting to the bottom of the issues and it is not about ensuring that elections are conducted in a fair and proper manner in future; it is simply an anti-Labor kangaroo court.

One certainly has to ask: what do the Liberal Party and Family First have to hide? What is it in the 2006 election, or the 2002 election, or any previous election, of which they have such fear that they will not permit this committee to consider? This committee's terms of reference have been drawn up narrowly to try to focus only on one election. The Liberal Party and Family First clearly do not want this parliament to look into matters that happened in the 2006 or 2002 elections; they want to have narrow terms of reference, they want to ensure that this committee is hamstrung from the start and that this committee is simply an anti-Labor kangaroo court. That is what will be the clear outcome if the Liberal Party, Family First and other crossbenchers combine to defeat my very reasonable and simple amendments, which basically ensure that there is no ambiguity about the terms of reference covering other elections and add a paragraph that is in virtually every select committee reference.

Certainly, if members opposite combine to knock off 'any other relevant matter,' I am sure that I will look forward to them moving to delete that from the terms of reference of every other select committee they establish, when it is, in fact, they who move the terms of the select committees. Now it appears that Liberal members opposite are saying that we cannot have 'any other relevant matter'—something that appears in almost every other select committee terms of reference. That is just a clear admission, a clear indication, that this is designed to be a particular political witch-hunt, a political stunt, because if it was not, the Liberal Party would have nothing to fear.

The government has said that it is not opposed to establishing this committee. We do not believe that the government or the Labor Party have anything to fear from establishing this committee. We believe that everything we have done has been lawful, but we accept that there has been concern about certain practices. We are happy to have a committee to look into that—we have already indicated that we are prepared to move to amend the Electoral Act—but why restrict it to one Saturday in 2010 and forget about what happened in 2006 and 2002?

If the Liberal Party, Family First and other crossbenchers combine to defeat an amendment to simply add 'any other relevant matter' and if they combine to ensure that this committee cannot look at any previous election, what do they have to hide? What is it that they are so fearful of? That is the question that South Australians will ask themselves.

If the select committee terms pass without these very simple, straightforward and commonplace amendments, it will be very clear to the people of South Australia that they can have no confidence in this select committee getting to the bottom of any issues and making any concrete proposals to improve the electoral process in South Australia because, if the terms of reference are restricted to a very narrow basis only intended to beat up on the Labor Party, people will know that this is a stitch-up from the start and that they should not rely on anything that the select committee has to say.

I commend my amendments to honourable members, which I will move. It is very clear that they are simple, straightforward and commonplace. One of them in particular, as I have clearly demonstrated, was in virtually every other select committee reference in the previous parliament and, if honourable members opposite and the crossbenchers combine to defeat those amendments, to my mind it will be a very clear indication that this committee is not intended to achieve anything to advance democracy in South Australia; it is merely intended to be an opportunity to beat up on the Labor Party.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:03): I will agree with 90 per cent of what the Hon. Bernie Finnigan has said. When I saw the terms of reference and the amendment, I thought it was a reasonable amendment. I was surprised that 'any other relevant matter' was not included in these terms of reference. I did approach one of the other crossbenchers and commented that I thought it was perhaps a little one-sided that we were only going to look into the 2010 election when, in fact, there had been allegations in the 2002 election, I think—or 2006, whatever—that other people, other parties, participated in similar exercises as what we saw at the 2010 election.

However, I did have a conversation with the Hon. Bernie Finnigan and I asked him if he would consider changing the first part of the amendment from 'and previous elections' to be specific about the 2006, 2002 election. He indicated that he would be open to that but I notice that it has not been changed. The implications of having 'and previous elections' is that if the Labor Party wanted to drag out this particular select committee and influence the results or the outcome or just take their sweet time, we could go back 150 years.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Well, we could—we could go back. We all know that there is no morality in politics, don't we? Morality is up to philosophers not politicians. My concern is that the Hon. Bernie Finnigan did not see anything wrong with amending that and then did not amend it.

This is basically a cheap political stunt by him. If he really wanted an honest and open select committee and the Labor Party was more than willing to have this inquiry into the election because there was nothing to hide, then it would have made sense to get the support of the house and the crossbenchers, and that simple amendment would have been made and we would have felt quite comfortable with it. However, that did not happen.

The second point is that if we are also concerned about any other relevant matter it could have been a separate amendment. It could have been supported and I certainly would have supported it. On the face of all that, I raise concerns about this amendment and how it was drawn up. I did seek advice from people (not from the Liberal Party) who know how these things work and the concern was that the phrase 'and previous elections' in this amendment is very broad and one could go back 150 years if one really wanted to.

I was going to support this amendment when I first saw it. However, after hearing the Hon. Bernie Finnigan's rave, that if the cross-benchers don't agree to the Labor Party amendment—which is deficient I believe—and that therefore crossbenchers do not think for themselves and are somehow aligned—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: What!—given that an opportunity was put to the honourable mover of this amendment to make a reasonable amendment to make it acceptable, and that it was not done tells a story in itself.

The Hon. P. Holloway: It's qualified by (a), (b), (c) and (d). It can only be for further elections in relation to those matters.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Hang on. No, that is actually not the advice that I got from an independent source. The meaning of this amendment 'and previous elections' could mean every election that we have ever had. The Hon. Bernie Finnigan made the point himself that he would want to see—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Are we having a debate here or what? What are we doing?

The PRESIDENT: Order! You've got the floor.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: If you cease responding to interjections then you will find that it works a lot better.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I didn't respond—I don't think. Anyway, 'and previous elections' could have been qualified to make us all feel comfortable with what we were voting for. The Hon. Bernie Finnigan made the point that if the Liberal Party was genuine about wanting a true inquiry into this it would have been more qualitative as well, or more descriptive in its terms of reference, so it seems as though everybody is playing games with this.

I will not be supporting this amendment, given that I did approach the Hon. Mr Finnigan to amend the amendment and he shook his head but then did not do it. That tells me that this is a stunt in itself. I will be supporting the motion as it stands.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:10): The Greens support the establishment of this select committee. We support fairly narrow terms of reference because I think that the mover of the motion has encapsulated the main issues that were of concern in this election. Certainly, the media and public attention was on the how-to-vote cards, but there were also serious concerns raised about declared institutions, and I know from communications that the Greens received that there were a number of residents of nursing homes who were dissatisfied with the level of service that they received by both officers of the state electoral office and also people at nursing homes.

In terms of whether the terms of reference should be broader than just the last election, one of the reasons the Greens are attracted to the motion as it is is the commitment on the part of the Hon. Stephen Wade for this to be a short, sharp inquiry that does not go for the half a decade that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan referred to. There is probably no doubt in anyone's mind that if we trawled through the last several elections we would find bad behaviour on all sides. What has been interesting about this election is the position Family First found themselves in, and the Greens have found ourselves in, during previous elections, at the hands of both the old parties, and we have, to the best of our ability, dealt with those as they arose.

For now, I think we need to focus on what went wrong in this last election, and I think the terms of reference are broad enough given that it includes the ability for the committee to identify 'measures that may be necessary to ensure that electors are not misled'. That is fairly broad and can cover a range of things, and it may well be that in formulating those measures examples are taken from previous elections where poor practices have been followed.

I am pleased that we are going to set up an inquiry that will look at this. As members would know, as well as this select committee, the Greens have an electoral reform bill, Family First has an electoral reform bill, and the government itself says it wants to reform the how-to-vote provision. We will debate that when we get to it, but there is every indication that those provisions, which have existed for half a century or so in commonwealth law and do not work there, will not work here either, which is why the Greens took the position that banning how-to-vote cards altogether is the way to go.

In terms of expanding the terms of reference to include any other matters, I think that would be inviting us to rehash the whole Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill of last year. There are issues of birthday cards being sent to people as a result of their birthdate being on the electoral roll. There is a whole range of matters that relate to elections that is broader than the relatively narrow range of problems that was identified in the March 2010 election.

With those words, I indicate that the Greens support the motion and its terms of references as drafted and we do not support the proposed amendment of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan. We will, however, support the foreshadowed amendment of the Hon. Kelly Vincent. If it is moved, we will be pleased to support it because it fits nicely with the range of concerns that were expressed—for example, the nursing homes that have been mentioned—and there are many categories of voters who I think need to be better served by the electoral system than they have been.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (20:13): I move the amendment in the name of Hon. Mr Finnigan:

Paragraph 1—

After 'General Election of 20 March 2010' insert the words 'and previous elections'.

After subparagraph (d) insert new subparagraph (e) as follows—

'(e) any other relevant matter.'

Why should we do that? Why should we look at elections prior to 20 March? I have already indicated in answer to a question, I think on the very first day of the sitting, my experiences back in the 2006 election. As I was not a candidate at that election, I was handing out how-to-vote cards for Mr Tom Kenyon, who subsequently was elected as the member for Newland. In that election, Family First had, I think, an open ticket. That was its decision. It had not deemed preferences.

Clearly, that had upset the Liberal candidate for that electorate, and so what I witnessed during that election—I observed them quite closely and subsequently—were the same people handing out Liberal how-to-vote cards. They sort of swapped over halfway through, but they were handing out a how-to-vote card that was meant to appeal to Family First voters, and it was to give the second preference to the Liberal Party. Quite clearly it was designed to do that.

When I witnessed that, as I indicated in answer to the question, it was a matter that I raised, because I thought, 'Well, look, I think this is not proper behaviour, because it could tend to misrepresent.' For that reason, I specifically raised it after the election to see whether we could do something about it. Of course, subsequently in this place amendments were moved to the Electoral Act; it was section 112C, which would have followed a similar clause in the federal parliament. There have been these things. As the Hon. Mark Parnell just said, parties have been handing out cards to try to encourage and get the second preference, and, really, why should candidates not try to get the second preference of votes?

We do have a preferential system. After all, Family First does not own its voters any more than the Liberal Party and the Labor Party own its voters and own their intention. I am sure that many of the 340,000 voters who voted for the Labor Party did not follow the how-to-vote cards.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You don't use other people's brand.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: But you did. The problem, Mr Wade, is that you did. That is what you did—at least, not you personally, but it is what your party did.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I did not.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You pioneered this, and I am coming to this point in a moment. We tried to outlaw it. History shows, if you look at it, that it was rejected in this council. So, what conclusion could any reasonable party official take? This practice had existed before in the 2006 election. Measures specifically aimed to remove it had not been passed by the parliament, so was it not reasonable to assume therefore that that would happen again?

Of course, the difference this time was that Family First had decided to give its preferences, I think universally, to the Liberal Party. Of course, Family First did not do this in 2006. It was to the Liberals' benefit in 2006, and they did it and they pioneered it. It was not enough to get the Hon. Mr Brokenshire across the line when he was running for the Liberal Party back in 2006. I believe the same thing that I saw in Newland happened in Mawson. Whereas that was not effective then, of course, what has happened subsequently is that, because at this election it did not suit the Liberals' purpose and they had no need to do it, they did not do it.

We know what it is like in politics: once a precedent has been set, it is likely that, if it is successful and it is legal, it will be followed by other parties. In this case, as far as I am concerned, the conscience of the Labor Party is quite clear. We tried to amend it. We put the amendment up and it was rejected in this place. We tried to outlaw it and we were unsuccessful, so what other conclusion could you have? If it is legal, if it has happened in the past, then what do you do in politics? There is one alternative: you either do it yourself for self-preservation or you try to get it changed. We tried to get it changed.

We were not successful in doing that, as history shows. The reason I am supporting the amendment is that, from my own experience, I know that is what happened. The events of previous elections are relevant to what happened in the build-up to this election. Of course, this behaviour should be changed. I wish it could have been changed after the 2006 election. I wish that it did not happen at the 2006 election, but what I cannot stomach is this hypocrisy by members opposite who pioneered this. Variations of this have been used plenty of times in the past, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has indicated.

For as long as I have been in politics, as long as I have been a member of the Labor Party (and that is some 40 years), I have seen instances where dummy candidates are run simply to draw preferences. A certain proportion of people will always vote for Independent or non-aligned candidates. I saw it when I was working for Ralph Jacobi in 1975, when Steele Hall was running and had a candidate called Wallace, whom no-one ever knew, but the preferences were handed out. At the polling booths where people were handing out how-to-vote cards for this unknown Independent, they went strongly towards the Liberal Party. Everywhere else (where they were not handing them out) and in postal votes it was the usual fifty-fifty split; it was the usual donkey vote, protest vote.

We all know about the shadow treasurer in another place and the mystery of Annie Seaman in the 1997 election, where a dummy candidate turned out to be his relative and did not turn up or have anything to do with the election. Why did she run for election?

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member says that is not true. The reality is that we all know it happened. The honourable member should read the Hills & Valley Messenger of Wednesday 29 October 1997. This has happened. This is the history of this issue. I do not wish to condone the behaviour. Let us get rid of this behaviour. Let us pass the bill and ensure that it does not happen, but let us not have the hypocrisy that this idea of getting a second preference vote for a major party is somehow new or immoral or unprecedented—because that is just not true. Everyone who has been involved with elections knows it is not. This is a complete stitch-up. The most important thing the parliament can do is to pass the amendment—which it should have passed last year—to get rid of it. I cannot stomach the hypocrisy within this debate that somehow something new has happened.

In relation to the amendment that was opposed, what happened in the March 2010 election arose out of events that happened in the previous election. It is important that it be put on the record, if this committee is to be a kangaroo court like so many of these upper house committees are. If it is not really interested in finding out the truth, so be it. If it is yet another Legislative Council committee set up to play politics, so be it. But at least I would have put on the record that what happened at the 2010 election was a direct result of what happened previously. It should be examined by the committee but, if this committee just wants to denigrate the reputation of the Legislative Council, if we have another committee that plays politics and does not seek to get to the truth, so be it, but I suggest that it will be the reputation of this chamber that will be at stake, not the reputation of the Labor Party.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:23): On behalf of Family First, I advise that we will be supporting the opposition's motion and that we will not be supporting the government's amendment. I will explain briefly why. Irrespective of the minister's contribution, what happened in 2010, in the opinion of our party, is totally unprecedented. Secondly, there are not only issues in relation to polling day but also issues regarding the whole management of this election with respect to the Electoral Commission which have raised a lot of concern. Those issues, in a short, sharp and shiny way, need to be dealt with.

I am a little tired of the government using the excuse that because clause 112C was defeated in this council it gave the government a gateway to be able to get up to its tricks on 20 March 2010. I have heard the most senior people in government say that the whole reason that they were able to get up to skulduggery on that day is that I personally removed clause 112C. Well, the fact is that I did move that clause 112C be removed and it was supported unanimously; it was supported by the government.

I will tell members the reason why I removed clause 112C. The intent of clause 112C was to shut down the Farmers Federation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the AMA, the AEU and any organisation in the history of the democracy of this state that has put out a report card on how they rate individual members of parliament, parties and Independents on issues of the day. The government wanted to shut them all down and stop them from being able to put out their report cards because the government was not travelling well when it came to rural areas, conservation, teachers, disability services, and even the PSA. It wanted to shut them down and stop the democratic process.

That is the one and only reason why I moved that we not support that. I repeat again that every member of parliament, including every member of the government, supported that. However, I will put a little more on the public record. A very senior minister—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Say that outside; I would like your house. The fact is that a most senior minister, as I am advised, went to the Labor Party and said, 'Why are you doing this because it is illegal under the new amendments?', and only then was that minister challenged by someone else in the organisation of the Labor Party who said, 'No, we have had advice on this, we can get away with it on this technicality.' If members look at sections 112A and 112B (which are still in the act today) they talk about preventing this stuff that occurred on 20 March. However, because section 112C was removed, as advised by my legal team, it created a technicality that allowed the government to get away (supposedly) with what occurred on 20 March 2010. I put that on the public record because they are the clear facts. Finally, Family First also supports the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment because it makes sense.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:27): I move:

Paragraph 1(b)—

After 'post and services to' insert the words 'people with disabilities and'

I wish to place on the record my support for this motion; that is, the establishment of this select committee. South Australians deserve an open and accountable electoral process that will ensure that those who are enrolled to vote are in fact given the opportunity to vote, and I consider that the proposed select committee could well improve the current process and help to ensure this. It was with great concern that I saw the dodgy how-to-vote card scandal unfold in the days following the 20 March 2010 election. However, as I see it, the proposed select committee will do more than simply name and shame those involved in that particular scandal, as it would also consider measures that may be necessary to ensure that our electors are not misled in future elections.

Further to this, the proposed committee would also report on other important aspects of the March 2010 election, including the integrity of the roll. This must be upheld on the grounds that a vote is both a right and a privilege. It is outrageous that we even need a select committee to ensure that this basic element of the electoral system is upheld, but clearly we do. The proposed committee would also report on the provision of voting services, including voting by post and services to residents of declared institutions. For me, this term of reference is most important as I believe that effective and inclusive voting services are central to ensuring that all eligible voters are able to cast their vote.

I am aware that the Electoral Commission SA has a disability strategy to help ensure that its services are tailored to meet the needs of people with disabilities. However, my office has been contacted by a number of people with disabilities who have raised concerns about the voting services for people with disabilities in the 2010 election.

I received contact from several constituents who are outraged at a state system that does not allow those with vision impairments, for example, to vote in privacy unlike the federal electoral system which already has in place strategies to accommodate people with visual impairments.

My mandate, and the mantra of my party, is to achieve dignity through choice for people with disabilities, and choosing one's own elected representatives is fundamental to that idea of choice. This is, after all, the people's parliament, is it not?

While I consider that the Hon. Mr Wade's current terms of reference for the proposed committee may well cover services for people with disabilities, I feel that it would be somewhat remiss of me not to move an amendment that ensures that services for people with disabilities will definitely be addressed if the committee is established. I ask that my fellow members support me in this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:31): I would like to thank all honourable members including members of the government for being willing to consider this motion merely one sitting period since it was moved. I appreciate that it is normally the practice of the council to let matters lie on the table for some time, and I appreciate the cooperation of all legislative councillors to ensure that this matter is dealt with expeditiously.

I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Even the government seems to be reluctantly willing to admit that there was a problem that needed to be looked at, even if government members seem to be more keen to play the blame game. They have moved amendments which they seem to want to use as an excuse not to support the substantive motion, but let me explain to honourable members why I would encourage them not to support any amendments other than the amendment moved by the Hon. Kelly Vincent.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could, in that case, turn to the amendment of the Hon. Kelly Vincent first, because I think it illustrates the weakness in one of the government's amendments. Government members wanted to make it open slather, by including 'any other relevant matter'. They said that that was going to provide clarity and remove ambiguity. I would have thought that adding 'any other relevant matter' would have added ambiguity not clarity. The Hon. Kelly Vincent did the courtesy to the council—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr President, could you clarify who has the call?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr President. Secondly, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, as I said, has provided an amendment which clarifies a matter which, as she hinted in her comments, I believe would have been covered by the amendment but, for the sake of clarity, I appreciate it and I will certainly be supporting it.

In relation to the government's amendments, the Leader of the Government, in moving the amendment on behalf of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, who apparently seems to forget how to do these things—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Normally, you include 'any other relevant matter' and I don't need to amend it. Normally you include 'any other relevant matter'.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It's just that this time you didn't. I had to move an amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You didn't move it, Bernie. That is the problem. You waffled on and then you didn't move it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Wade will stick to the substance.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What the honourable Leader of the Government said, on behalf of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan (who was not lost for words but was lost for an amendment), was that he was concerned that this seemed to be targeted at the Labor Party. Could I remind honourable members that paragraph 1(a) states, 'the use of bogus how-to-vote cards...to ensure that electors are not misled'. End of reference. There is no reference there that reads 'misled by the Labor Party'. It is misled by anyone. The fact of the matter is that this committee will fail if it does not provide recommendations to this council that will protect voters from any party working against their interests.

Secondly, the other reason why I believe the first part of the amendment is ill-founded is because it suggests that we should be looking not just at the 2010 election, but at all previous elections. There have been 52 general elections since 1851—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —excuse me—and goodness knows how many by-elections. So if the committee really thinks that we've got time to have a select committee on so many elections I think that is ill placed.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable Leader of the Government—of course it would be disorderly of me to be distracted by his interjection, but he says there was a suggestion earlier there might be elections that were relevant. We were told that perhaps 1975 might be relevant, when Ralph Jacobi was up against Steele Hall; it was suggested that 1997 might be relevant because of Mr Evans; we were told that 2006 might be relevant because the honourable Leader of the Government was handing out how-to-vote cards in Newland. The fact of the matter is that this reference needs to be timely and focused.

Thirdly, I think it was the Leader of the Government, or it might have been the honourable Bernard Finnigan, mentioned that the commonwealth government has had reviews into elections which have been broad. I was interested that they did reference the commonwealth practice because the commonwealth, indeed, does have a general review after every election, but that is by a standing committee. It is by a joint standing committee. In other words it is not just this house telling the other house how to run its business. And, secondly, none of those references are for more than one election. Why would you, after every election, have a committee that looks at all other elections back to 1851?

Fourthly, the Senate has actually passed a very similar reference to this to the joint select committee on electoral matters. Believe it or not, they have not included the 1851 election. They have only included this election, because this is the election that has shown a gaping hole in both the law and the morality of the Labor Party.

The other point concerns the second part of the government's amendment in relation to 'any other relevant matters'. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan suggests that adding 'any other relevant matters' would avoid ambiguity. I cannot see how it would. 'Any other relevant matters'—doesn't that just say anything?

The Hon. A. Bressington:Why do we have it in every other one?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let me answer the hypothetical question: why do we have it in every other select committee? That is not true; we do not have it in every other select committee. As the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said in relation to a committee that he referenced, we added matters as we needed to. I was very keen to make sure that this reference was focused and timely. It is not going to be a four year select committee, and to that end I believe it was necessary to keep it focused.

If the Legislative Council is of the view that other matters come up in relation to the 2010 election that warrant further investigation, first of all I would be surprised. It is two months since the election and we would have thought that all significant matters had already been identified. It is always open to the council to amend it, just as we did in relation to the committee that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan related to, we can refer additional matters to this committee. But I believed it was very important to maintain faith with those members who expressed an interest in this committee, to keep it timely and focused, because we want the results of the committee back so that the council can consider the amendments in relation to the Electoral Act well before the local government elections in November.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I made that clear in my moving speech. We are not the only representative government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the President.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In summary, Mr President, the opposition is strongly of the view that it would be most useful for the people of this state if the committee was focused and timely. We do not believe that the government amendments serve that end. We would urge honourable members to support the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment and oppose those of the government and then support the motion as amended.

The council divided on the Hon. P. Holloway's amendment to paragraph 1:

AYES (5)
Finnigan, B.V. Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller)
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
NOES (12)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Dawkins, J.S.L. Jennings, T.A. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G. (teller)
PAIRS (4)
Gago, G.E. Lucas, R.I.
Hunter, I.K. Hood, D.G.E.

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent's amendment carried; the Hon. P. Holloway's amendment negatived.

Motion as amended carried.

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