HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

State Election

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:54): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the following matters—

(a) the extent to which the 2014 state election result reflected the popular will, the effectiveness of the 2011 redistribution to this end and the prospects of achieving this outcome by reforming the redistribution process;

(b) the effectiveness of measures to ensure that electors are not misled;

(c) access to and use of the electoral roll and other lists and databases for election purposes;

(d) provision of voting services, including voting by post, pre-poll voting, services to people with disabilities and residents of declared institutions;

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

(f) management of the 2014 state election by the Electoral Commission, including the powers and resources available to the commission;

(g) management of the 2014 state election count to facilitate timely, reliable and adequate information;

(h) opportunities to reform campaign funding and donations to reduce the risk of inappropriate influence;

(i) progress in implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee into Matters Related to the General Election of 20 March 2010; and

(j) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 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 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.

After the 2010 election the Legislative Council established a select committee into matters related to the general election of the 20 March 2010. The committee looked into a range of issues in relation to the conduct of the election, in particular the use of dodgy how-to-vote cards by the Australian Labor Party, problems with postal voting and increasing access to voting for people with disabilities.

This motion proposes another select committee to both assess progress on the issues raised in 2010 and, to be frank, to deal with a fresh new range of ALP dirty tricks at the 2014 state election. It seems that at each election the Labor Party shows yet more examples of how to play dirty during election campaigns. In the view of the Liberal Party, there are more than enough issues that need to be dealt with to justify the formation of the select committee that I moved.

A key issue coming out of the 2014 election—or, shall I say, reiterated by the 2014 election—is the issue of electoral fairness. Earlier today my leader, Steven Marshall, made the following comments in the other place:

The party which clearly received the majority of votes in this election has not been in a position to form government, and this has happened far too often in recent years in this place…It is the people of South Australia who have been denied the government of their choice…Fifty-three per cent of people wanted a Liberal Party to govern this state. I accept that the system has delivered a Labor Party to form minority government, but this indicates, quite frankly, that this parliament needs to allocate resources and time to look at our system and to reform our system before the 2018 election. If we squibb on this, we are not doing our job. This will be a primary objective of the Liberal Party going forward.

The leader indicated that this parliament needs to allocate resources and time to look at our system, and the creation of the select committee that I move through this motion is an opportunity for further reflection on our electoral system.

The 2014 state election was like a number of others in South Australia; it delivered government to the party with less than the majority of the two-party preferred vote. Amongst psephologists and people interested in electoral matters, that is often referred to as 'a wrong outcome'. The Liberal Party received 44.8 per cent of the primary vote, that is, 91,377 more votes than the Labor Party. A full 9 per cent more of the primary vote was won by the Liberal Party than by the Labor Party. The Labor Party scraped in with just more than one-third of the statewide primary vote; only one in every three South Australians felt comfortable giving the Labor Party their first preference vote.

The two-party preferred vote in favour of the Liberal Party was 53 per cent. The Liberal Party was the preferred party of government in 24 of the 47 seats. The Liberal Party won a majority of the two-party preferred vote; the majority of voters in a majority of seats wanted a Liberal government.

The government gloats about a fourth term, but let us remember that it has only won a mandate to govern in one of those four terms. This government did not win a two-party preferred majority in three of the last four elections. Clearly the government does not have a mandate; it does not have the support of the majority of South Australians. In 2002 South Australians did not get the party they voted for, in 2010 South Australians did not get the party they voted for, in 2014 South Australians did not get the party they voted for.

This problem is not new and, to be frank, it has affected both parties during our state's history. First, the Labor Party—particularly post World War II and in the early 1960s—suffered not just in terms of, shall we say, the Playford electoral rules, but the point highlighted by research by Professor Jaensch and others is that there was a significant disadvantage for the Labor Party in those years as a result of the concentration of majorities. In about the 1960s the demographics of our state changed, and that disadvantage became a disadvantage for the Liberal Party.

The Labor Party painted itself as the champion of democracy when it tackled concentration of majorities in the decades up to 1975. Now, of course, electoral reform is dismissed as sour grapes. Don Dunstan would not take such rubbish, and neither will we. The Liberal Party is of the view that now is the time to look at reform in this area.

It is clearly not enough to seek just prospective re-engineering of boundaries to try to create a level playing field. As I said, three of the last four elections have produced wrong outcomes. We must now look at what other measures could be taken that will actually deliver what the people of South Australia have demanded in three of the last four elections.

The principle issue here is not the impact on the Liberal Party or any other party: the offensive impact of the current electoral system is that the people of South Australia are repeatedly seeing their democratic will frustrated by the electoral system. To that end, the Liberal Party will actively pursue reform of our electoral system. The foundation of our democracy is that those with the majority support of the people should govern, and that has not been realised in recent years. Accordingly, my motion includes a term of reference that reads:

(a) The extent to which the 2014 state election result reflected the popular will, the effectiveness of the 2011 redistribution to this end and the prospects of achieving this outcome by reforming the redistribution process;

The minority Labor government has been formed within the constitution. It has not been formed with democratic legitimacy, neither was it formed with electoral legitimacy. We will not forget how the Labor Party won its one-third of the vote.

Soon after taking office as Premier, the member for Cheltenham promised to lift the standards of parliament and parliamentarians. It appears that by the time he got to his first election all bets were off. The Premier's words were a distant whisper behind a torrent of disgraceful behaviour from the Labor Party. The Labor Party fought with misleading fear campaigns, they spread blatant lies about Housing Trust cuts, about the Flinders Medical Centre funding, about the council voting records of candidates, they deliberately sought to confuse voters with campaigns on federal issues against state candidates. They resorted to racist propaganda and dog whistling to scrape together the votes they needed to survive.

Let me quote Haydon Manning, Associate Professor in the School of Social and Policy Studies at the Flinders University. On 4 April 2014, in an article in The Advertiser, entitled 'Dirty tricks campaigning must be halted', Associate Professor Manning said:

This state election is now done and dusted, but occasionally an event during an election campaign is so breathtaking it leaves an enduring aftertaste because you can't believe that a party would stoop so low. For two consecutive elections Labor takes the dirty tricks prize, and one wonders where shameful campaign tactics will end up.

In 2010 Labor campaign strategists sought to deceive when they dressed up as Family First members and handed out bogus 'how-to-vote' cards to unsuspecting voters in a number of marginal seats.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Disgraceful.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I agree. I continue to quote the Associate Professor:

Dean Jaensch and I criticised this at the time as an abhorrent low point in campaign tactical manoeuvring. Late in campaign 2014 that low point was trumped when Labor strategists aimed, I believe, to associate the Liberal candidate for Elder, Carolyn Habib's surname with the strife we observe bedevilling Middle Eastern countries.

Labor's leading lights, such as Tom Koutsantonis, tried in vain to conjure a rationalisation that the attack on Habib 'was not racist'. I am afraid his defence will not wash.

The racism in the pamphlet is implicit, it is not overt. By any reasonable assessment this represents a play upon racist sentiment in our community.

Entertaining dirty tricks is unbecoming at the best of times, but preparedness to tickle a racist nerve is simply deplorable.

Labor federal MP, Ed Husic, has called for an apology, I hope this is noted, because Liberal candidate Carolyn Habib deserves some contrition from Labor; in fact, we all do.

South Australian voters deserve a line—a very clear one at that—be drawn through this type of campaigning as it has no place in multicultural Australia.

Premier Jay Weatherill cannot avoid the flak either. He might consider addressing parliament and, by using his authority, commit his party to end 'dirty tricks'.

If the line is not drawn we will descend further into the mire of deceitful and shameless election campaigning.

Associate Professor Manning's comments are extremely strong, particularly for an academic, and I find it extremely disturbing that members of the Labor Party, who claim to be committed to a multicultural Australia, can stand by and allow this sort of abhorrent behaviour. I will quote again a couple of the key phrases from what Associate Professor Manning said:

For two consecutive elections Labor takes the dirty tricks prize, and one wonders where shameful campaign tactics will end.

Later he says:

South Australian voters deserve a very clear line to be drawn through this type of campaigning.

Later on, he says:

If this line is not drawn, we will descend further into the mire of deceitful and shameless election campaigning.

I would urge the parliament and the community of South Australia to take a moment to stop and reflect on what we can do to enforce that line. I honestly thought, after the 2010 election and the heat the Labor Party took in relation to their abhorrent behaviour in relation to Family First how-to-vote cards, that even they would see the risk to reputation of that morally offensive behaviour. But, no: we come into a new election and we have what Associate Professor Manning says—that is, a new low set. He said that what was done in the 2010 election against Family First and its parliamentary candidates was a low in the history of the state yet, at the next election, in spite of the moral risk they were facing, the Labor Party decided to set a new low.

Clearly, we cannot rely on the Labor Party to self-regulate. Moral self-regulation has not worked. They either have no morals or no interest in self-discipline. I find that disappointing because politics is a very dynamic enterprise and, of course, you will have robust debate. In fact, regulation of political campaigning can impair the robust exchange of political views, but we must try to raise the standards of our election campaigning. The Labor Party has shown in the last two elections in particular that it has no interest in doing so. In spite of all the high words uttered by the member for Cheltenham as he assumed the position of Premier, they failed to deliver with breathtaking audacity.

Let me remind honourable members about the process we went through after the 2010 how-to-vote cards debacle. During the 2010 election, as we know, we had Labor Party volunteers impersonating Family First volunteers to redirect second preference votes. Following that disgraceful performance by the Labor Party, they promised to change the laws to prevent their own dirty tactics. Members will remember that in 2010 a bill was tabled. The Liberal Party highlighted that it would do nothing. I think it was actually considered by the select committee, and it was indicated that it would do nothing to prevent dodgy how-to-vote cards, so the Attorney-General came back with another proposal.

What this election showed is that the Labor Party will do whatever it can to work around and evade the relatively light regulation that is currently in the legislation. When Labor's so-called solution was debated (this is when we considered the bill in the last parliament), the Labor Party consistently opposed the Liberal Party's attempt to create a robust ban on dodgy how-to-vote cards through picking up a recommendation of the 2010 select committee for registration in advance. The Labor Party used its numbers in the other place to force an alternative proposal into law. In practice, the changes provide little or no protection because Labor, as I said, just tried to dodge the laws.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Power at all costs.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Exactly—whatever it takes. As the honourable member reminds me, 'power at all costs' reminds me of Graham Richardson, who said for the Labor Party, 'Whatever it takes.' The laws that Labor introduced, as interpreted by the Electoral Commissioner, did nothing to reduce the risks of a dodgy how-to-vote card. I am informed that the cards distributed on election day by the Labor Party only had an element in common with the cards lodged by the Labor Party under section 66, that being the representation of the ballot paper and the numbers inside it.

On no common-sense view of the legislation we passed could the Labor card have possibly been considered to have been substantially of the same appearance as this parliament laid down when it inserted section 112A(c) of the act. Despite the advanced notice of the requirements, and the clear intent outlined both in the law and in the parliament, the laws were not enforced to protect electors from dodgy cards.

The operation of the law, the conduct of the Labor Party and the commissioner's interpretation, in our view warrant further investigation by the committee. If the commissioner's interpretation is, in fact, justifiable, the parliament must come back to the drawing board to tighten up the laws. For its part, the Liberal Party complied with not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. The Liberal Party demonstrated that disclosure is workable, and our actions mirrored our words, which is more than can be said for the Labor Party.

A range of other issues have been raised with me in relation to the 2014 election, some of which include the lateness of the distribution of postal vote ballot papers and the slowness of the count. Another concern was the commissioner's lack of willingness to undertake a rethrow in key seats, which could have influenced the decision as to who should form government and, of course, issues were raised by my honourable colleague, the Hon. Rob Lucas, in relation to the misallocation of 1,000 Liberal Party Legislative Council votes, I think in the electorate of Bright.

I welcome the motion of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire also in calling for a select committee to look at the 2014 election. I think the motion from the Family First party highlights what they too would be hearing, namely that the community is extremely disturbed about the conduct of the Labor Party in particular in the election context.

I would suggest to the honourable member that there may be value in us working together to integrate our terms of reference. Obviously our parties share a determination to prove the democratic processes and there are elements in common with both motions. I would even dare to look forward to support from the minority Labor government. The agreement to support a stable and effective government—that is what they call it; it might be better to call it the agreement to support a stale and unelected government—was signed between Geoff Brock and Jay Weatherill. It includes a provision to look at election conduct. Clearly, the member for Frome was disturbed about conduct in the election. We on the opposition side would hope that the government, too, would accept that we need to form a committee such as this.

I indicate to honourable members that it would be my intention to bring this matter to a vote on 21 May, the next sitting Wednesday. It has already been recommended by the previous committee. It has already been anticipated by both the Brock agreement and the motions from both the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I. Early commencement will allow early resolution, and it may well be that there are matters that are recommended that have implications for the electoral redistribution process.

None of these matters, in my view, requires significant analysis in terms of deciding whether or not a committee is justified. Clearly there are more than enough issues for a committee to look at. It is a well-established practice in at least two other parliaments. I understand not only that the commonwealth and Victoria have regular election reviews but I am also advised that Queensland has adopted that practice. I am certainly of the view that, whilst we do not need a standing committee on electoral matters, a select committee after each election is a good opportunity to improve our electoral system. Clearly, the Labor Party is demonstrating that after every election it will be producing fresh challenges to the parliament to try to protect democracy from their dirty tricks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

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