State Election

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the following matters related to the general election of 15 March 2014—

(a) the workings of Part 5 of the Constitution regarding electoral redistribution and the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission, including but not limited to the interpretation and application of the considerations in section 83 for electoral fairness and other criteria;

(b) other aspects of the electoral system relating to marginal seats, the electoral pendulum and electoral fairness;

(c) the laws and rules relevant to electoral advertising and taxpayer-funded advertising in an election period, including but not limited to questions of truth in political advertising;

(d) the handling of complaints about conduct that may affect the result of an election, and sanctions available and applied thereto; and

(e) 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.

(Continued from 7 May 2014.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:46): I obviously have decided to further adjourn private business No. 7 standing in my name. I would indicate to members that, subject to their consideration of this motion and my amendment to it, it would not be my intention to progress with motion No. 7, and that is because the concerns the Hon. Robert Brokenshire raised in his motion, which he moved on 7 May, are concerns shared by me and the Liberal Party.

Our concerns also encompassed other matters, so what I propose, in terms of efficient use of the committees of this council, is that the motion of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire be amended to integrate the terms of reference that I put before the house. In that regard, I move:

Leave out subparagraph 1(e) and insert the following subparagraphs—

1. (e) the effectiveness of measures to ensure that electors are not misled;

(f) access to and use of government service provision records for election purposes;

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

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

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

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

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

(l) any other relevant matters.

After subparagraph 4 insert new paragraph 5 as follows—

5. That members of the council who are not members of the committee may, at the discretion of the chairperson, participate in proceedings of the committee but may not vote, move any motions or be counted for the purposes of a quorum.

The first amendment is to increase the terms of reference and the second is to give members who are not, shall we say, quorum members of the committee the opportunity to participate in the committees. Again, this is picking up on the practice of the council which has proved so effective in the Budget and Finance Committee, led by the Hon. Robert Lucas.

I believe it is a great innovation, and I think it is particularly relevant to a committee such as this because it would be fair to say that every member of this council has a particular interest in the electoral system and, to be frank, often a distinctive interest. In that regard, I can well remember the work of the 2010 committee which had a particular focus on the access to democracy for people with disabilities, and the discussions I had with the Hon. Kelly Vincent in relation to that matter. I commend both motions to the council, but I would suggest that the second motion particularly honours the diversity of this council and the capacity to get the breadth of view to a range of issues.

As we come out of the election, I would characterise the tasks in relation to the electoral system in three bundles: the first is to review the 2014 election; the second is to redistribute the electoral boundaries and, in that context, consider whether our current redistribution process is the best it can be; and, thirdly, to consider electoral reform more broadly.

Members will well remember the discussions we had at the end of the last parliament in relation to the possibility of introducing optional preferential voting for this chamber. I would characterise the Liberal Party position on that bill as agnostic but open to reform. We believe that is one of the items of unfinished business we have in this parliament.

If the three tasks are the three Rs—review, redistribute and reform—the issue facing this council and this parliament is how best to take on those tasks. If I properly understand the ministerial statement of the Attorney-General in the other place, he believes that all of those tasks can be effectively done by a standing committee, and that is what the government's position is.

I put it to the council that there is benefit, in relation to all of those three tasks, for them to be separated; in particular, I put that the review process, the process of reviewing what happened at the 2014 election, would be best done by a select committee of this chamber. The reason I say that is that I think that it is very important that a select committee to review the 2014 election be early, focused and independent. It needs to be early, it needs to be timely, in the sense that we need to get the review underway and completed as soon as possible. Progressing it through a standing committee would significantly delay it.

I am sure that a standing committee of this parliament in relation to electoral matters will not be established this side of the winter break. We have only 10 sitting days left before the winter break. I well expect that the government has tabled the bill that was foreshadowed in the previous ministerial statement in the other place today, but the House of Assembly has not yet progressed off the Supply Bill; it has a number of other bills that need to be considered.

I think that it is highly unlikely that the standing committee bill will be considered before winter, let alone the bill being proclaimed, let alone the committee being formed, let alone the committee getting on with the tasks and, if the committee is to have a broad scope, as proposed by the government, there may well be a range of views about the tasks that should be undertaken. Because of the need for timeliness, the Liberal Party is of the view that a select committee of this house is the best way to progress the review of the 2014 election.

Secondly, in terms of independence, we believe that a select committee of the Legislative Council is the most appropriate way forward. It is our view that the committee should not be controlled by either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. We have already said that we believe that it would benefit from having an Independent chair and, let's be frank, the Legislative Council is the only house with true Independents who are currently available to serve on committees. All our thoughts are with the Hon. Bob Such, as he fights illness, but he is the only Independent in the House of Assembly who is not currently sitting at the Labor Party cabinet table. In that context, we believe that the Legislative Council is in a better position to provide independence.

Thirdly, the crossbenchers have been good teachers. They have reminded me that bipartisan is old-fashioned; multipartisan is the fashion of the day, and the fact of the matter is that we have six political groups in this chamber. It is all well and good for the Attorney-General and the Premier to assure us that electoral reform needs to be bipartisan, but in a house where the Independents match the members of the government—they do not quite match the Liberal Party but, still, they match the members of the government in this house—we need to accommodate the diversity of views in the political environment in South Australia.

In that regard, we believe that a Legislative Council select committee which uses the Budget and Finance-style mechanism of allowing all members to participate is a good way to make sure that not only a diversity of factors are considered (for example, the democratic rights of people with disability) but a diversity of perspectives. The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion when we last sat which highlighted the particular burden registration fees which were used at the last election had on smaller groups I think is a strong point. Let me put it this way: a Liberal/Labor controlled committee might not give it the same focus as a select committee with the, shall we say, all-in approach of the Budget and Finance Committee.

Fourthly, with all due humility, I beg to differ from the Attorney-General in terms of his comments about the quality of the work that you could expect from a Legislative Council committee. On yesterday morning's radio the Attorney-General suggested that a standing committee was a better approach because it is the best chance of getting 'an intelligent conversation about this rather than the sort of usual schoolyard behaviour you get from an upper house select committee'.

I am sure that the Attorney-General was not trying to insult the Hon. Bernard Finnigan and the Hon. Russell Wortley but I, for one, remember their contribution to the 2010 select committee on electoral matters. That was a committee that I chaired. It had two Labor members, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Dennis Hood and me. That committee, rather than being a political circus or being characterised by schoolyard behaviour, came up with 20 recommendations. Of those 20 recommendations, only two were not supported by the Labor members. If these upper house select committees are merely vehicles for political grandstanding, a waste of time and do not produce recommendations of value, I ask the Attorney-General: why did your colleagues the Hon. Bernard Finnigan and the Hon. Russell Wortley, endorse 18 of the 20 recommendations?

Let me remind the house of a few. Obviously, a major focus of the 2010 election was in relation to the dodgy how-to-vote cards. Members will remember that there was already a government bill called the Electoral (Publication of Electoral Material) Amendment Bill. The committee recommended that the government not progress that bill because we did not believe that it would prevent dodgy how-to-vote cards. Obviously, the government was persuaded by that because they did not progress the bill.

There were a number of other proposals put forward by government and the third recommendation of the committee was to pursue a disclosure approach on how-to-vote cards. That recommendation was picked up in the changes to the Electoral Act in the last couple of years. How-to-vote cards now need to be disclosed before an election.

A number of recommendations were made in relation to postal vote applications. Part of that was that we recommended that the date for the issuing of the writ be fixed to facilitate planning for postal votes. That, again, was a recommendation picked up and put into our electoral legislation by this parliament. We made recommendations in relation to electoral services for people with a disability. I find it insulting that the Attorney-General considers the work of the committee to be mere political grandstanding.

To be fair to the Hon. Russell Wortley (the now President), the two recommendations that the Hon. Russell Wortley demurred from were in relation to electoral identification. I do not believe it is merely political grandstanding to raise that issue. In fact, I just remind the house that in recent months the Australian Electoral Commission, at the federal level, said that they were investigating 19,000 cases of multiple voting at the federal election. This is a matter for serious consideration by electoral administrators right around Australia, and I believe that the committee in 2010 had an appropriate focus on that issue. We also highlighted issues about web-based rolls in polling booths, information technology, staffing and resourcing for the Electoral Commission, and so on.

I would reiterate that I believe that a select committee of the Legislative Council, with a very focused goal of reviewing the 2014 election, is the preferred approach in terms of timeliness, in terms of independence, in terms of multipartisan input and in terms of quality.

I want to stress to members that the Liberal opposition is not saying, in supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion and seeking to amend it, that we oppose a standing committee. There are a range of tasks that need to be done in relation to electoral matters. We believe this select committee is the best way to get on with the job and get a review of the 2014 election. In relation to the other matters, we are happy to have a conversation with the government. In that regard, I am still waiting for a call.

On 21 May the Deputy Premier told the House of Assembly, 'I will be having discussions with members of this place and the Legislative Council in the coming days about this committee.' I certainly understand that the government has been trying to do deals with the crossbenchers; they have not chosen to engage the Liberal Party. We certainly believe that that is not consistent with the assertions by both the Premier and the Attorney-General that the government does respect the need to have bipartisan reform in this area.

In spite of that disregard, we remain open and keen for electoral reform. After all, we are the party that has, at the government formation level, suffered most from the electoral system. We are the party which, at three of the last four elections, has won the majority support of the South Australian people and not been given the privilege of respecting their wishes and forming government. At the last election 90,000 more voters preferred a Liberal government to a Labor government, yet the will of the South Australian people was denied. If an electoral system exists for anything, it exists to reflect the will of the community it serves. We will be very keen to make sure we make key and fundamental changes to the electoral system to make sure the system in South Australia is fair for all participants.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:02): I will be very brief because we have had two very similar motions on the Notice Paper. In speaking to the other motion last week, I said that the Greens were supporting the establishment of a committee to look into electoral matters. For the record, we will support this motion. We will support the proposed amendment to this motion, but we also support the concept of a standing committee looking into electoral matters. I do not believe it is in any way mutually exclusive and that support for one precludes support for the other. As the Hon. Stephen Wade said, we know that the government has committed to a standing committee. It may or may not have been a bill tabled in another place, we have not seen it. I certainly have had correspondence from the—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It has happened now, apparently.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Okay, I understand it has just happened now. I thank the Hon. John Dawkins for his irregular but valuable interjection. I certainly received a letter from the Attorney-General overnight saying that they would be introducing legislation. So, I look forward to seeing the fine detail of that. We have said that we will be supporting a committee.

Mind you, what we have not yet received from the government (and I look forward to seeing the bill that was tabled) is whether it has the participating member approach that we have not only called for but succeeded in getting other members of the Legislative Council to agree to. The upper house select committee certainly will be a forum open to all members of this chamber. Unless there is an amendment to the government's proposed standing committee, such an opportunity might not be offered by that committee, but that is a debate we will have a little later on. For now all I need to do is put on the record that the Greens are supporting this motion and that we support the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment to it.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:04): I rise to oppose this motion. I do not know why members of the Legislative Council are looking into election outcomes from the House of Assembly. If the Liberal Party is unhappy with the election results because they did not win enough seats, then it would be more appropriate for there to be a joint standing committee established to look into the lower house's business, rather than forming a select committee of only upper house members. This is exactly what the federal parliament did and what the other place has also proposed.

The election is over and the government is formed. Like with the footy, some teams have fewer scoring shots but still win the game because they are more accurate in kicking goals. Just because the Liberal Party still cannot work out what they should focus on in their campaigns in marginal seats does not mean that the electoral system needs to be changed. To continue with the footy analogy, some teams may be disappointed when they lose a game because they had more scoring opportunities, but they move on to the next game and try to kick more goals instead of points. They do not try to change the rules so that a team that has more scoring shots wins the game. This could completely destroy the game.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Just wait. Mr President, the fact remains that the Liberal Party had more votes but less seats. Our electoral system dictates that you have to win a majority of seats to form government. Everyone knew these rules, which fundamentally respect our Westminster traditions. Proposing change to our electoral system strikes right at the heart of those very traditions, something I thought conservative members opposite would appreciate.

It has been suggested that a top-up MP should be used to ensure that the party that wins the majority of the votes also wins the majority of seats, but I ask: exactly who will these top up MPs be responsible to? Just as ministers are responsible for their portfolios, so are local members to their electorates.

Clearly, the Liberal Party is overlooking its own weakness in not being able to convince the people of Newland or Colton, for example, that they should vote for a new government. Both local members obtained a higher primary vote than their Liberal counterparts—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Can honourable members allow the Hon. Mr Ngo to read his riveting speech, please?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: —so first past the post would not have got the Liberal Party home in either of those two seats. Neither seat could hardly be described as Labor heartland, particularly Newland.

The Electoral Commission adjusted boundaries to the appropriate extent to allow for fairly contested campaigns in marginal seats. Its role was never, and never could be, one to decide an election outcome. All members should be aware of this, and I find calls questioning the Electoral Commission's integrity quite saddening. Marginal seats were there to be won, and the Liberal Party utterly failed.

There is no way in the world that the Electoral Commission could adequately address the so-called fairness provision, because it is impossible to predict how each and every voter will vote in a subsequent election, regardless of their vote in previous elections.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Don't react; just continue on with your speech.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Let me use the example of Newland: Fairview Park and Surrey Downs were redistributed into that electorate before this year's election. If you consider the entry of those suburbs into Newland alone, it brought down the margin that the Labor Party enjoyed in that seat. Both suburbs subsequently enjoyed significant swings to the Labor Party at the 2014 election. Many residents of Surrey Downs and Fairview Park who voted Liberal in 2010 in the seat of Little Para subsequently switched to the Labor Party in 2014 in the seat of Newland. This is the fundamental problem that the Liberal Party should be looking to address.

If things are going as badly as the Liberal Party says they are in South Australia since 2010, how is it that they are losing a swag of votes that switched to the Labor Party in a seat that the Liberals had to win to form government? I will leave that for their brains trust to ponder.

The Legislative Council 2014 election results saw the Nick Xenophon Group obtain 130,289 votes, and they only got one member elected. Family First obtained 44,015 votes, yet they also got one member elected. I recently put an advert in all local Vietnamese and Chinese newspapers to thank the people who supported me and the ALP and I printed the Legislative Council results. Many people asked me why the Nick Xenophon Group, with 85,000 more votes than Family First, only had the same number of members elected. Where is the fairness in that?

I have told people that this is the electoral system we live in where preferences do play a role in getting someone elected. You do not have to have more votes than other candidates and you can still be elected. Maybe the Nick Xenophon Group should be moving a select committee to look into whether the Legislative Council electoral system is fair, instead of our council setting up our own committee to look at the business of the other place. Perhaps even a joint select committee looking into the electoral system of both houses would be appropriate. I would certainly support that because it looks at our own council as well.

I make these remarks with the knowledge that there have been many calls for the upper house to be abolished, or for the length of terms to be reduced to four years. I believe it is important that this council has a position on this question. Since the government has already announced the establishment of a joint standing committee derived from members of both houses to review the election, it is vital that members here participate in that committee to represent the interests of this council. This is where our energy should go. It is for these reasons that I oppose the motion.

The PRESIDENT: I am going to put the motion. All those in favour? Against? Carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Well, those were the only speakers I had.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Point of order, Mr President. I believe I have the right to sum up.

The PRESIDENT: No; I agree. You look a bit embarrassed about the numbers that you were elected on, so I think you really need to do a bit of speaking. The Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:12): Thank you, Mr President. I assure you, sir, we are not at all embarrassed. That is four elections we have contested and contested them successfully—20 straight years in the parliament. Furthermore, and I say this with due respect to the Hon. Mr Maher, but our surplus was greater than the fourth Labor seat, so we believe we are fully deserving to be here and were elected under the system completely legally and appropriately. Anyway, that is a matter for another day.

In fact, that brings me to the central point: that is actually a matter for this committee because where I disagree with the Hon. Mr Ngo's contribution is if he looks at the terms of reference of the committee as proposed by my colleague the Hon. Mr Brokenshire it specifically says, under (b), 'Other aspects of the electoral system relating to marginal seats', yes, that is obviously a reference to the House of Assembly; 'the electoral pendulum', largely to the House of Assembly; but, 'electoral fairness', which could be interpreted to be an issue for the Legislative Council. Then, section (e), of course, is, 'Any other relevant matters.' So, there is plenty of scope in these terms of reference as amended by the Hon. Mr Wade to include discussion of the Legislative Council if the committee sees fit.

I would like to take the opportunity to make a few brief remarks. Family First does accept the amendments as proposed by the Hon. Mr Wade. We endorse them and will support them when the vote is put. My colleague the Hon. Mr Brokenshire gave a fairly significant contribution when he introduced this a few weeks ago, so I will not dwell on the merits of the committee, whether to or fro, it looks like it has the numbers to be supported. But I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Wade for his contribution, the Hon. Mr Parnell for his contribution and, although I disagree with a lot of what the Hon. Mr Ngo said, I thank him for his contribution.

It is something that Family First feels passionately about. I think it needs to be noted that we were the political party in 2010 that was subject to the so-called dodgy how-to-vote cards. I believe it did do us damage on the day. It is something that can never be proven, of course, but it is something that we will certainly never forget. With those few words I thank the members for their contributions and I commend the motion to the house.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:17): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. R.L. Brokenshire, the Hon. T.J. Stephens, the Hon. S.G. Wade, the Hon. K.J. Maher and the Hon. T.T. Ngo, and that the Hon. R.L. Brokenshire be appointed chairperson.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place and to report on 19 November 2014.

Motion carried.