Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 September 2014.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:03): I rise very briefly to speak on the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill. At the outset, I would like to offer my support to the position that the Hon. Mark Parnell made earlier this week in relation to the issue of remuneration. I agree that there is absolutely no justification for paying members to be on this committee or indeed on any other parliamentary committee. If you are on a committee, you should be there because you want to be there, not because it attracts an allowance or a chauffer-driven car. As such, I will be supporting the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mark Parnell.

There is no question that I also support any moves aimed at considering electoral reform. A lot has been said about why it is that we went into the last election without an alternative election model. Some argue that we had the perfect opportunity last year to implement an optional preferential voting system in time for the March election. Others argue that we could have had a first-past-the-post system. On 21 May, the Attorney in the other place is quoted in Hansard as having made the following remarks:

Can I just tell you about a magical parliamentary moment? One member of the upper house moved a bill to introduce PR. We supported it, a few of the crossbenchers supported it, and then, at the critical moment when it came to a vote, guess who voted against it? The person who moved it. That was unexpected.

Anyway, that is why we do not have first-past-the-post yet, but I hope we can have intelligent conversation about that over the months ahead. It is important that we keep electoral reform in front of mind, and we do not just say, 'Oh well, it is over for another four years.' Why don't we get stuck into it early? Why don't we have a look at it early? I think that would be the intelligent thing to do.

We all know that even though the Attorney did not name me, it is clear that I am the member he is referring to, so let us just revisit last year’s debate for a moment.

During the last week of sitting we had two OPV bills on the notice paper: one introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell and one introduced by me. It was my hope that one of those models would pass in time for the 2014 election. We also had a third bill introduced by the government. That bill was designed to disadvantage groups such as the one I am a member of.

On 27 November, the last Wednesday of sitting and the second to last day of the sitting year, we were summoned by the Attorney to a meeting in the Balcony Room. Also present was the Electoral Commissioner and the deputy electoral commissioner. From memory, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Kelly Vincent were there. My memory escapes me now, but either the Hon. Dennis Hood or the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was there. In any event, the only crossbencher not represented was the Hon. Ann Bressington, who was away on extended sick leave.

The purpose of that meeting was to try to reach some sort of resolution as to which reforms would be accepted. What was made abundantly clear by the Attorney and the Electoral Commissioner at that meeting was that the government could not, and would not, contemplate passing either of the OPV bills that were before the parliament. That left us with the third bill that was, in its original form, targeted fairly and squarely at minor groups and Independents, a bill targeted at making it as difficult as possible to have independent voices elected to this place.

Let me be clear: at no point at all throughout this entire debate did the Attorney contact me to discuss the various models that were being bandied about. At no point did the Attorney contact me and say that the government was willing to support my bill. I defy the Attorney to give me one instance when we discussed this matter.

He cannot, because, other than that one meeting where members were all briefed and warned off OPV because of the timing of the election, he did not contact me. Even his advisers at the time were telling my advisers that OPV was not an option. Even the President will recall speaking to me on a number of occasions about whether or not I had been approached by the Attorney with respect to this matter. The bottom line is that there was no commitment on OPV by the government.

I could not in good conscience come into this place in the dying hours of the last sitting day and press ahead with my bill, not only because the government could have chosen instead to go with its alternative model, which would have disadvantaged groups like mine at the election, but because it was unfair. The selfish thing would have been to do just that because, had the government decided to accept my bill—and again, there was no indication that they would have—the Xenophon group would, in all likelihood, have had two representatives sitting here today instead of one.

Without preference deals we all know that the makeup of this place and the other place would have been vastly different to what it is now. This is not sour grapes: it is the simple truth. I did not choose to do the selfish thing; I chose to do what was right at the time. Members of the government, including the Attorney, who suggested that there was support for my bill and that the reason we went into the election without an alternative model was because I voted against my bill, have some cheek. Those members know that the government’s own advice at the time was that it would not accept this model, plain and simple. They know that the Electoral Commissioner’s advice at the time was not to support this model. So, if you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story, not just the parts that suit you at the time.

It is high time that the government stood up and took notice of all those elected to the Legislative Council. The government does not have the numbers in this place because that was not what the people of South Australia wanted. They opted instead to ensure that this chamber be made up of representatives from various political spheres in order to ensure transparency and in order to hold the government to account over its decisions.

As I said at the outset, I will support any measure aimed at ensuring that our electoral system is reformed in line with the basic democratic principles of fairness and in line with community expectations. That is why I also support in principle the opposition's call for an independent commission of inquiry on electoral reform. To that end, I too am willing to consider this additional proposal for a parliamentary committee on electoral reform. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:10): I will speak just briefly today to say that I support the second reading of the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill, and I start by saying that I indeed echo the words and the sentiments of a number of my parliamentary colleagues who have raised the idea that it is absurd that this should be a paid committee or indeed that any committee of the parliament should be paid.

Imagine going into a deli to order a sandwich only to find that you have paid not only extra for the extra ingredients you wanted in the sandwich but also a fee for the person to put those ingredients in place. That might sound like a ludicrous example, and perhaps that is because it is, but I am sure that it sounds just as ridiculous to everyone out there that we are paid extra to do what should be a run-of-the-mill part of our job. So, I certainly agree with those comments.

There are many features of our electoral system that need to be investigated and reviewed following each election. The areas needing review relate not just to the endless diatribe we hear debated by the major parties—that is, which party received which percentage of the two-party preferred vote. It is a very narrow view from which to decide whether or not an election is fair. What Dignity for Disability is more concerned about is not who gets the spoils of office necessarily, as the Liberal or Labor party in this state seem to be very much focused on, but instead the impact our state elections every four years have on the people of South Australia.

Will the election of this MP or that party result in the most vulnerable members of our society having their voice heard in our democracy? Will people with a disability be able even to vote equitably? We need to remember that at this point only two-thirds of our polling booths are accessible to people with physical disabilities, and in South Australia the requirement to mark the ballot paper with a pencil means that blind and vision-impaired voters cannot have a secret vote, such as might be achieved if they were able to vote over the phone.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that people with borderline and mild intellectual disability are either discouraged from voting or no-one ever supports them to enrol to vote if that support is what they need; therefore, they are further disenfranchised. All these issues need to be investigated very seriously, and I hope that this committee will examine these matters with the attention they deserve. It is also a consideration that 30 per cent of the electors choose to vote for someone in other than the old parties. Non-major parties do not get 30 per cent of the seats in parliament. Is this a fair operation of democracy, you might ask? When might we get proportional representation, particularly in the House of Assembly?

We also need to look at other issues of representation within our parliaments. Why do we have fewer women in parliament than we did in 2013 and, indeed, fewer women in parliament than countries such as South Sudan—a country where you are more likely to die in childbirth than to complete your education? The ratio now stands at women comprising less than 25 per cent of the parliament, despite the fact that we make up 51 per cent of the South Australian population.

What about young people; people with disabilities; Indigenous South Australians; people born outside Europe, Australia or New Zealand; people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or otherwise queer; or people from low socioeconomic backgrounds? People in any or all of these categories are a rarity in our parliaments. There are very few from all these categories.

We need to look at how accessible our electoral system is to all South Australians in terms of the running of parliament for all South Australians of voting age. On the matter of amendments, I currently indicate that I support the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment, as I have said, but I need to consider those that have been filed by the Hon. Stephen Wade a little further.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:15): I rise to support this bill. As we all know, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire had previously introduced a motion to establish a select committee to deal with the 2014 election outcome of the House of Assembly, and not this place. I was very clear in my opposition of that motion at that time. I have never understood how we, as members of the Legislative Council, saw it appropriate to look into the election outcomes from the House of Assembly through a select committee process. What would honourable members of this chamber think if the other place decided to establish a select committee on the election outcome of this place?

This bill is a non-partisan way of dealing with the election outcome. It establishes a joint standing committee to look into both houses' business rather than forming a select committee of only upper house members. The federal parliament went down exactly the same road. The intended functions of the Electoral Laws and Practices Committee are outlined in clause 15R of the bill and include the following:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on—

(i) the conduct of parliamentary elections and referendums in South Australia; and

(ii) the administration and operation of, and practices associated with, the Electoral Act 1985 and any other law relating to electoral matters; and

(iii) any other matter referred to the Committee by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Electoral Act 1985; and

(b) to perform other functions assigned to the Committee under this or any other Act or by resolution of either House of Parliament.

The equal membership of both houses to the committee ensures that the appropriate checks and balances are provided for. It will also avoid the political point-scoring which is often facilitated through the establishment of partisan committees.

I urge honourable members to support this bill so that we can start reviewing the election process while it is still fresh and recommend the necessary changes to parliament. As the Hon. John Darley outlined in his speech recently, there was chaos in the last sitting week of the last parliament where members could not decide which model to go into the election. So, I urge members of this house to support this bill so that we can start this work ASAP so that we do not have a situation that the Hon. John Darley just outlined. So I commend this bill to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): In the absence of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I call the minister to conclude the debate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:19): I would like to thank all the members who made a contribution to this very important bill, and I look forward to further debate during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In my second reading speech I stressed that the Liberal Party considers that, amongst a range of important electoral reform opportunities available to the parliament, the most important electoral issue facing the state is how to ensure that governments that form following parliamentary elections reflect the majority will of South Australian electors demonstrated at those elections. In three of the last four elections that has not occurred.

The Liberal Party considers that the prospect of real reform on this issue through, shall we say, internal parliamentary processes, such as a committee, is low. The Labor Party is the strong and recurring beneficiary of an electoral system which punishes political groups whose support is geographically concentrated. Labor was in that situation up until 1970, and they considered it a scandal. Labor has been the beneficiary of the geographical concentration in the sense that the Liberal Party has been underrepresented in the parliament proportionate to its vote. Labor now regards this bias as 'just the rules of the game' and tells us to get over it.

In our view, we need a circuit breaker. We need a process to focus back on the majority principle. In that context, the Liberal leader, the member for Dunstan in the other place, Steven Marshall has provided a circuit breaker in the form of a private member's bill in the House of Assembly to establish an independent commission of inquiry on electoral reform, focusing on electoral fairness. The Liberal opposition humbly submits that this proposal is a sound one that needs to be properly developed and considered. We are concerned that it will continue to languish in the House of Assembly, given the short amount of time that private members' business is allowed in the other place.

The Labor Party needs to realise that they do not control either house of this parliament and that all parliamentarians are entitled to have their proposals properly considered in a timely manner. In that context, the Liberal opposition seeks the support of this council to adjourn debate on this bill until the government progresses the Commission of Inquiry and Electoral Reform Bill 2014 (Bill No. 26) in the House of Assembly. I move that progress be reported.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

Progress reported; committee to sit again.