HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (PUBLICATION OF ELECTORAL MATERIAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 July 2010.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:58): I rise today to indicate Family First's position with regard to this bill. As members are aware, this bill and the matters surrounding it, including the incidents of election day, have been subject to a select committee, so I will not reflect on the matters before the committee but perhaps just express some preliminary thoughts on the bill at this stage, and we will get to the detail at the committee stage of the bill.

This bill amends the Electoral Act 1985 and attempts to fix two significant issues once and for all. The first issue, of course, is the one that has received less publicity, if you like, and that concerns the banning of anonymous internet comments which flared up in the media just prior to the last state election. Section 116 is amended to allow the anonymous posting of internet and blog comments during an election campaign, and clause 5 of the bill gives effect to this intention. Family First supports the amendment, and I think that everyone in this chamber will support it. Indeed, it seems clear that The Advertiser supports the amendment.

The other issue involved the handing out of the so-called dodgy how-to-vote cards on election day. We all know the facts. I am not going to labour those facts. I think we are all very familiar with them. It was covered extensively in the media at the time. It was something that I think received extensive coverage and was widely criticised by senior political figures and commentators throughout the state. Very briefly, in a number of seats Labor volunteers dressed up as Family First supporters and asked voters to put a '1' next to Family First and a '2' next to the Labor Party, even though, of course, in those seats the Family First Party had agreed to preference the Liberal Party.

This bill purports to remedy the situation in clause 4 so that this can never happen again. I must say, it is at the direction of the Premier, as I understand it, that this bill comes forth. He is to be credited for insisting on this change so that this situation can never happen again. I think there is absolutely universal agreement that this sort of thing is detrimental to our democracy and should never happen again. The problem, however, is that we are not satisfied that the amendment proposed by this bill actually performs the task that it sets out to do. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.

Specifically, in the four marginal seats of Mawson, Light, Morialta and Hartley last election, as I indicated, Family First had directed its preferences to the Liberal Party candidates in each of those seats. It has to be noted that how-to-vote cards can only suggest how voters direct their preferences in the lower house. Where they actually put their votes on the ballot paper and in what order they choose to do that, of course, is a matter that they can ultimately make up their own minds about. They do not need to follow how-to-vote cards at all.

So any preference deal, so-called, is therefore only as good as the ability of the party itself to direct its preferences and of their supporters to be able to do it. You do that in two ways, of course, and that is by having people on the polling booths handing out the cards, so firstly, a party that enters into such an arrangement has to be able to person the booths, to have enough people covering the booths. Secondly, they have to have confidence that their voters will actually follow that card, and do as the card asks. I would like to talk a little bit more about that in detail.

I think on that basis Family First can claim to carry a good deal of weight in those discussions because, as the data that I am about to enter into conclusively shows, by and large Family First supporters do follow our how-to-vote cards quite closely. As I said, we are able to person our booths, by and large. Our data indicates that we had about 98.6 per cent coverage of our booths at the last election. At the federal election it was actually a little bit lower, because of a number of conferences and the like that were happening, but about 98.6 per cent of the booths across the state from 8 in the morning until 6 at night were covered by Family First volunteers at the last state election.

That is not our best result, but that is about average for us in terms of our coverage across the state. So, we can person our booths, and that is the first tick in the box. The second tick in the box, the second issue that needs to be addressed, is: do our voters, or do voters of other parties, actually follow the how-to-vote cards? It is no good having people handing out how-to-vote cards if nobody is going to follow what is actually on the how-to-vote card. I will read a number of articles here which give credence to what I am about to conclude. A Crikey article dated 15 March 2007 states:

A study of 16 years of electoral survey data overwhelmingly shows that [some voters do not follow the how-to-vote cards. Indeed,] Australian Green voters DO NOT follow the how-to-vote cards for the House of Reps 76% of the time. Even more interesting is that 79% of those same voters preferenced the ALP anyway. In contrast, FAMILY FIRST Party voters follow their how-to-vote cards 46% of the time.

So, about half the time at least, in that particular example, our voters followed the how-to-vote card. That is not a criticism of Greens voters. It is merely a fact that that is what the data suggests.

I think it is important to note that, with at least half (this is actually a very low figure) of our supporters following how-to-vote cards, obviously those preferences can make a significant difference in any particular seat, particularly in the outer suburban seats, where our vote is somewhere around the 8 to 11 or 12 per cent mark. I will quote from a few articles that back up that claim. The Australian Financial Review, for example, on 28 August 2005, not long after the party was formed, noted:

The House of Representative's preference deal between the ALP and the Greens is not worth much to the larger partner, because all the Greens can do is advise voters, using how-to-vote cards, as to who should get their preferences; evidence suggests that nearly all Green voters (about 96 per cent) ignore that advice...Now, voting data suggests Family First [as they call it], the new kid on the block [at the time], has a significant ability to influence its voter's preferences...in seven seats Family First preferenced the ALP, and the turnaround was dramatic: 61 per cent of those votes now flowed to Labor. That's a difference of 26 per cent between a Family First preference deal for Liberals and a Family First Labor deal.

Our Parliamentary Library report of 9 February 2002 on the results of the South Australian election notes:

Most of the Family First votes in the House of Assembly ballot were distributed to the...[Liberal Party] rather than the ALP—about 63 per cent went to the Liberals. However, there were 3 seats where a majority of Family First preferences went to the ALP—the deciding factor appears to be that the Family First How To Vote Card in these seats put the ALP ahead of...[the Liberals].

Taking into account those seats where the Family First How To Vote Card recommended an ALP preference as well as the seats where the Card recommended a...[Liberal] preference, 66% of Family First votes did send their preferences to ALP or...[the Liberals] in accordance with the How To Vote Card for their electorate.

The point I am trying to make (and there are a number of quotes) is that somewhere between 50 per cent and roughly two-thirds of Family First voters do follow those how-to-vote cards across a number of elections. In some cases, the number is higher, but it is roughly two-thirds on average or as low as about 50 per cent—somewhere in between there seems to be a true reflection of what percentage of Family First voters follow our how-to-vote cards. So, it is a very high percentage. In fact, according to these articles, higher than the other minor parties. Therefore, you can see why those preferences are fairly well sort after in very tight seats, particularly outer suburban seats, where our vote tends to be higher.

Another important article appeared in The Age of 26 June 2006, and it stated that Mr Rudd, the then prime minister, believed that Family First preferences cost the ALP three to five seats in the 2004 federal election. So, that is the situation with respect to what happens to our preferences. It seems clear that there is a relative level of consensus that people do follow our how-to-vote cards and, clearly, we can person our booths on the days that matter; hence the significance of those preferences, particularly in those outer suburban seats and, of course, in very tight seats as well.

Moving away from that for the moment, the question is: what do we know so far about what happened at the last state election? Well, there are a number of facts we know, which even the ALP does not contest, and that is that the ALP obviously valued the Family First preferences in those elections or it would not have bothered with the scheme they put in place.

It was apparent that the scheme was organised by the head office of the ALP. In fact, Michael Brown, the State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party here in South Australia, has admitted that. He made no attempt to conceal that fact. He was quite happy to acknowledge that—proud of it, apparently. I am not sure that I heard him say that he was proud of it, but—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, that's right; yes.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: And so the argy-bargy begins. I have tried to keep away from making comments on what party did this and what party did that; I am trying to stick to the facts. I think all of us would agree that we never want to see it happen again, regardless of on what side of the house people sit. In terms of a list of facts—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, there has been talk about it, hasn't there? There are also a number of facts that we know, and that is that it involved at least four electorates. I am informed that there was at least one other involved, but we know for certain that there were at least four electorates involved: Mawson, Light, Morialta and Hartley. To be fair, we do quite well in terms of our vote in Mawson and Light, and I would say we do fairly well in Morialta and not very well in Hartley—I think we got 4.7 per cent in Hartley if I recall correctly. So, in three of those four seats our vote is substantial and modest in Hartley.

The fourth issue worth noting is that it involved liaison with the MPs in those seats. I make particular mention that there were some MPs who decided not to be involved, and that is now on the public record. I pay tribute, if that is the right word, to the member for Newland, Tom Kenyon, who declined to be involved. He has said that publicly and to me privately and that is worthy of respect. I think it would have been tempting. There he was, in a very marginal seat, the seat of Newland, and I think most educated observers were thinking that it would be very hard for him to hang on.

We preferenced against him: as members probably know we preferenced the Liberal Party, but he did the honourable thing and decided not to be involved in the scheme carried out elsewhere. I like to think that things turned out his way for some reason. I am pleased, in a sense, that he was returned because he did the right thing. That shows to all of us that our conduct is important and that it is not always beneficial to do things that are not necessarily the right thing to do. I pay tribute to the member for Newland for his deliberate decision not to be involved, and it is a credit to him. We also know that it seems that the party machinery deliberately excluded the Premier from having direct knowledge of this. The Premier has denied that he had any direct knowledge.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You can't believe the Premier.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, all we can do is accept him at his word.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Call me old school, but I like to think that people tell the truth in here. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I will accept that as gospel and believe that the Premier did not—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you. The Hon. Ms Lensink is very kind. I can only take people at their word, so I am happy to accept that. We also know that the T-shirts were deliberately designed to mislead people. They had 'Family First' in big letters written across the shirts. Whilst there was 'Put your' in very small letters, 'Family First' was in big letters and most people would assume that it was a Family First volunteer.

Finally, we also know that people were bussed or flown in—I am not sure which; I have been told both—from interstate to be involved in this. They are the facts before us, and that is what we know for certain. There has been a lot of conjecture around it as well, but that is what we know for certain. It is also important to note that Mawson was considered to be one of the most marginal seats in the lead-up to that campaign. When I say one of the most marginal seats, it was one of the seats most likely to change hands, in the view of many commentators, and the other was Light in Adelaide's north. I recall Light being the most marginal seat of all.

The how-to-vote card and volunteer impersonation concerning Family First at the 2010 state election was used in both those seats. It is interesting—and it may be coincidental—that in both those seats there was a swing to the sitting member. I am at a loss to explain that; I think the commentators were at a loss to explain that.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Good sitting members.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is one possibility. It is clear that there is an argument to say that good sitting members will get support and hence be returned. There are other suggestions that are more sinister than that. We will never know what is the truth there, but it is an interesting result that deserves some comment and reflection. The overall point I make—and I think I would get agreement from the chamber on this—is that, while the Labor Party may not like these sorts of discussions, the Premier has done the right thing and said it will never happen again.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The point we need to dwell on is that it does damage to our democracy: that is the bottom line. As a member of parliament all of us are sick of the fact that, when we are at social functions out in the community, at a work function or whatever it may be, politicians are not held in high esteem.

It is not something that you would need to be elected to this place to get a very firm idea of what level of esteem we are held in in the community. The plain truth is, and I am sure that everyone in the chamber would agree with this, that this sort of activity does not help that. I think that is a tragedy, because the reality is that I think that what members of parliament do is an honourable profession. Obviously, it is a very important profession.

I suppose it might be naive of me to say every single member of this parliament, but I think the absolute overwhelming majority of people in this parliament are here for only the right reasons, because they genuinely believe in what they are doing and they want to make a difference for their community. Obviously, we have diverse views, but people are here for the right reasons. That is the point I wanted to make. I think that this sort of activity—and I am not alone in this opinion, I am sure—does not reflect well on us. For that reason, we are very happy to support the changes in this bill.

I turn to the specifics of the bill, if I may. I think I have commented enough on the general circumstances that necessitated the bill. The bill proposes that we reinsert section 112C as a remedy for this situation of the so-called dodgy how-to-vote cards. However, Family First, as I indicated before, does not believe that this goes far enough. In fact, as has been widely publicised, we originally opposed the insertion of this section when the bill was attempted to be amended prior to the last state election.

We did that because we firmly believed, indeed, we had advice to the effect, that by inserting section 112C it could be read as banning community groups and other organisations from openly and publicly supporting particular candidates. I do not think any of us want that. That was the advice we had. We opposed it in good faith, of course, not expecting what actually happened on election day. So, with that in mind, I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in committee which will require that only registered how-to-vote cards can be distributed on election day.

To my view, this is a much better way of dealing with the issue. As somebody who is involved with the preferences, I am very familiar with this process. In simple terms, we will all lodge how-to-vote cards with the Electoral Commission which is the official how-to-vote card for each of the parties. All parties will do that, and then that is the only card that can be distributed on election day; then there is no misunderstanding. There is only one card for each party, and that is it: one card for each party for each seat. As I said, how-to-vote cards are already lodged with the Electoral Commission to allow for the preparation of electoral posters, so it makes sense to add a simple requirement that the how-to-vote cards handed out at polling booths are the same as the registered cards. That is it: one card per party per seat; end of story.

Our preferred way of dealing with misleading how-to-vote cards would be to provide that, on polling day and pre-polling days it shall be an offence to distribute how-to-vote cards that do not conform to a party's registered how-to-vote card as provided for in section 66 of the Electoral Act, and that is in terms of the preference numbering, not the design of the card, of course. I saw the Greens' card, for example, at the recent federal election, a very elaborate how-to-vote card with lots of colour and that on it, etc. That is not the part that the amendment will deal with; the amendment will deal with the specific order of the numbering on the how-to-vote card and provide that it should be identical to that used on the posters. As I say, one card per party per seat; end of story.

Section 66 provides that within four days of the close of nominations each political party is requested to lodge an example how-to-vote card. The current purpose for lodging the cards is so that they can be collated and printed on a poster that appears in every polling booth. The design and measurements for those cards do not necessarily match the cards that parties hand out on election day, as I indicated with the Greens' card a moment ago. There is nothing wrong with that.

There are specific size requirements, and no design elements are allowed on the registered cards. Our provision, or perhaps my amendment is a better way of putting it, would therefore assign an additional purpose to the lodgement of these cards. We do accept that, as a consequence of this change, candidates who fail to register cards with the Electoral Commission would be precluded from handing out how-to-vote cards. However, we understand that the vast majority of candidates lodge their cards correctly. We have had that confirmed to us by the commission.

Certainly, the larger parties who have the volunteers for election day would lodge their cards correctly. In the real world, the parties that have the ability to put people on polling booths would make sure that they get this right, and they know the consequences of getting it wrong. Indeed, one collateral benefit from a provision along these lines is that there would now also be a record of the how-to-vote card preferencing history kept by the Electoral Commission.

So, we would have a very clear record of who preferenced who over what period. To me, that appears to be a simple amendment to the Electoral Act. It means that it would now be clear that so-called dodgy how-to-vote cards or unregistered how-to-vote cards, if you like, are banned and simply cannot be used. It fixes it once and for all, with no questions asked.

Turning to another issue, if I may, as we are all aware there is currently a select committee inquiring into this event. Indeed, I am a member of that committee regarding this issue and what happened on election day, and the committee may very well make recommendations as to the best way to prevent such a thing from happening again. I would just like to say that, obviously, Family First is open to those recommendations. Indeed, we look forward to those recommendations and, for that reason, we would support voting on this bill being deferred until after the committee reports.

I have circulated my amendments to members for their consideration. I think it is the best way of solving this problem once and for all. Others have other ideas; we are certainly open to those. I think this is one that we need to get right once and for all, as I said, in the interests of our democracy and the esteem with which members of parliament and indeed political parties are held in the community.

I would like to touch on one final issue. I understand that the Greens have an amendment that seeks to ban how-to-vote cards. I have not seen that amendment. I am not sure that it has been tabled yet, but certainly the Hon. Mr Parnell has mentioned that to me. We are not closed to that at all; we would be open to considering that. I look forward to hearing in more detail about the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment before making a final decision.

My final comment is that I think it is in the interests of all of us to get this right once and for all. I think that these sorts of things reflect poorly on us and I think there is genuine goodwill on all sides of the parliament now to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.


At 17:21 the council adjourned until Wednesday 29 September 2010 at 14:15.

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