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

Electoral Nomination Deposit

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:15): I move:

That the regulations under the Electoral Act 1985 concerning nomination deposit made on 16 January 2014 and laid on the table of this council on 6 May 2014, be disallowed.

During briefings and debate on electoral reform at the end of last year, the government foreshadowed an increase in deposits payable by candidates seeking election to the Legislative Council. The deposit was $450, and the feeling amongst the old parties was that it should be increased. The Liberals proposed $2,000 but ended up agreeing with the government to raise the deposit to $3,000. The Greens did not support such a big hike in deposits, but clearly the numbers were against us.

Aside from the attack on democracy, it was particularly galling that during debate in this place and during the various briefings we had with ministerial staff it was never declared that the government's real agenda was to increase the deposits of both the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. However, as soon as parliament had risen for the year and the spectre of parliamentary scrutiny had disappeared, the government brought in regulations for an across-the-board deposit of $3,000 for both houses. The House of Assembly deposit was never raised as a problem, and we were never told that the government was even thinking about touching it.

This was a sneaky and underhanded move that made it more difficult for citizens to exercise a democratic right to contest elections. What makes this move particularly obnoxious is that the regulations came into effect on 16 January 2014, just two months before the general election, with the close of nominations (and therefore the time of payment of the new $3,000 deposit) being 24 February, a bare five weeks later. Parties and candidates had very little time to get that money together; in fact, the deadline for parties was even shorter, with the money needing to be paid by 21 February.

The increase in deposit affected intending Independent and small-party candidates particularly hard. Candidates who had been expecting to pay $450 were shocked to find that they now had to stump up $3,000 in cash or bank cheque just to contest the election. Unless they were regular readers of the GovernmentGazette, most candidates had even less than five weeks to find the money that they never knew they needed.

This can be compared with the situation we found when debating other electoral reform legislation, such as the bill in relation to donations and disclosure. Members might recall that the Greens wanted these new accountability measures to come into operation sooner, but Liberal and Labor agreed to give themselves two whole years to sort out their financial record keeping. Compare that with giving Independent candidates only five weeks to find a not inconsiderable amount of cash to be able to contest the last election.

It was not just Independent candidates who were affected; the impact on political parties was also significant. My party, for example, the Australian Greens, had to find $150,000 to contest each of 47 lower house seats and a team of three in the upper house. Whilst we were confident of getting a deposit back in most seats, we still had to redirect money from our campaign budget to cover these deposits.

So, leaving aside the unfairness in the manner of introduction of these regulations, the question is: did the new deposit prevent would-be candidates from contesting the election? The answer is that it most certainly did. The number of Independent and minor party candidates contesting the House of Assembly election has plummeted, and the cost of the deposit is a significant reason for that decline.

At this time I seek leave to include two statistical tables into Hansard without my reading them. They are purely statistical and are taken from the Electoral Commission of South Australia State Election Reports. They are tables 28 from the 2006 report and table 27 from the 2010 report.

Leave granted.

TABLE 28: CANDIDATES, MEMBERS ELECTED AND SHARE OF VOTE BY AFFILIATION

LC HA
No. No.
Affiliation Candidates Successful* % of votes Candidates Successful# % of votes
ALP 7 4^(9) 36.6 47 28 (23) 45.2
DEM 4 (1) 1.8 46 – 2.9
D4D 4 – 0.6 10 – 0.4
FFP 4 1 (2) 5.0 45 – 5.9
GRN 4 1 (0) 4.3 47 – 6.5
IND 17 2 (1) 23.5 17 3 (3) 2.8
LIB 7 3 ^(9) 26.0 47 15 (20) 34.0
NP 2 – 0.7 4 1 (1) 2.1
ONP 2 – 0.8 6 – 0.3
SP 2 – 0.6 0 – –
SSRP 1 – 0.2 0 – –
Total 54 11 (22) 302 47

(*) Figures in brackets show no. of seats in the new government;

(^) single vacancies were filled on the first sitting day of Parliament for both Labor and Liberal.

(#) Figures in brackets show no. of seats won at 2002 election.

ALP Australian Labor Party, DEM Australian Democrats, D4D Dignity for Disabled, FFP Family First Party, GRN Australian Greens, IND Independent, LIB Liberal Party, NP National Party, ONP One Nation Party, SP Shooters Party, SSRP Stormy Summers Reform Party


TABLE 27: CANDIDATES, MEMBERS ELECTED AND SHARE OF VOTE BY AFFILIATION

Legislative Council House of Assembly
Affiliation No. of Candidates No. Elected* % of first preference votes No. of Candidates No. Elected # % of first preference votes
ALP/CLP 5 4 (8) 37.3 47 26 (28) 37.5
DEM 3 - 0.9 8 - 0.4
D4D 4 1 (1) 1.2 3 - 0.1
DLP 2 - 0.8 1 - 0.03
FFP 3 1 (2) 4.4 47 - 5.4
FLT 2 - 0.6 9 - 0.2
FREE 2 - 0.4 4 - 0.2
G4C 1 - 0.8 5 - 0.2
GRN 3 1 (2) 6.6 47 - 8.1
IND 31 - (2) 4.8 22 3 (3) 4.7
LIB 7 4 (7) 39.4 47 18 (15) 41.7
NP 2 - 0.4 2 - (1) 1.0
ONP 2 - 0.5 - - -
SAVRAH 4 - 1.0 11 - 0.5
SP 1 - 0.8 - - -
UNITED 2 - 0.2 - - -
Total 74 11 (22) 253 47

(*)for LC-figures in brackets show the number of seats in the new Parliament

(#)for HA-figures in brackets show the number of seats won at the 2006 State election

ALP/CLP Australian Labor Party/Country Labor Party, DEM Australian Democrats, D4D Dignity for Disability, FFP Family First Party, FLT Fair Land Tax—Tax Party, FREE Freedom, Rights, Environment, Educate Australia Party, G4C Gamers for Croydon, GRN Australian Greens, IND Independent, LIB Liberal Party, NP National Party, ONP One Nation Party, SAVRAH Save RAH Party, SP Shooters Party, UNITED United Party-Water, Housing Health Care


The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The 2014 election report is not yet available, so I will refer to some of those statistics directly. Those tables show the following: in the 2006 election there were 302 House of Assembly candidates—the ALP, the Greens and the Liberals contested all 47 seats, the Democrats contested 46 and Family First 45. In terms of smaller parties and Independents, there were 37 other candidates. In 2010, there were 253 lower house candidates, and the reduction in number between 2006 and 2010 is overwhelmingly due to the demise of the Democrats who, in 2010, contested only eight seats. But, there were still another 57 Independent and small-party candidates. If you include the Democrats as a then microparty, 65 fell into that category.

But, when you get to 2014, this most recent election, again the ALP, the Liberal Party and the Greens contested every seat—all 47—and Family First contested 41. But the number of minor party and Independent candidates had plummeted to 21, so, in effect, only about one-third of the numbers in the previous election, and about half the number in the 2006 election. Why is it so? There is a range of reasons, but clearly one is the expense of contesting the election and that expense kicking off with having to find a $3,000 deposit.

I have certainly received anecdotal evidence from people who were planning to be candidates but decided not to when the price went up. Most Independent and small-party candidates are realistic enough to know that they are unlikely to win the seat, and many also know that they probably will not get their deposit back after the election as they are unlikely to reach the 4 per cent threshold for the return of deposits.

Of course one could argue that the reason there were fewer Independent and small party candidates in the last election is that the major parties, particularly Liberal and Labor, are doing such a fine job that fewer people feel the need to stand against them. However, we all know that is not true. In South Australia in recent elections between a third and a half of all voters have voted for someone other than Liberal and Labor in the upper house. The figures are lower in the House of Assembly, partly because the fields are smaller, which is why these regulations are essentially self-serving for incumbents. They help to ensure smaller fields, which means less competition and a higher vote for those who can afford to run.

This motion is to disallow these regulations and therefore disallow the increase in candidate deposits. Throwing out these regulations will be good for our democracy and a clear message for the community that standing for parliament is a right of all citizens and that there should not be an unreasonable wealth qualification.

We do not want to go back to the bad old days when, for example, only property owners were eligible to stand for election to parliament. This is not to say that there should be no criteria for being a candidate. Increasing the number of signatures required to support a nomination has merit, and it was one of Antony Green's recommendations delivered to the committee for the Economic Development of Australia Forum, which a number of members attended late last year.

The issue here, though, is about the money. It is about the price you pay for putting your name forward for election. The Greens believe the price is too high and that our democracy is the poorer as a result, and that is why we believe these regulations deserve to be disallowed, and we urge all honourable members to support the motion.

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

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