Electoral (House of Assembly Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:26): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985; and to make a related amendment to the Constitution Act 1934. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I have introduced the Electoral (House of Assembly Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill 2014, and I trust that even with the busy workload colleagues have they will have a chance to consider this bill as soon they can, because I give notice to my colleagues that I would like to put this bill to a vote as soon as possible. This is due to the issues around the bill and around the split by-elections occurring. One will occur on 6 December, and I understand the other one will, tactically, probably be in the middle of the school holidays or later in the school holidays in January next year.

Unlike the by-elections of Port Adelaide and Ramsay, by-elections which were both held on 11 February 2012, we currently have a situation where two by-elections are to be held on separate days. I point out to my colleagues that it is no secret that not only were the Port Adelaide and Ramsay by-elections both held on two different days for deliberate purposes, but they came as the result of executive members of the government putting undue influence on the former premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, and the former deputy premier and treasurer, the Hon. Kevin Foley. They wanted them out of the way at all costs so that they could get on with the business of capitalising on the issues around what happened with the pressure applied to the Hon. Mike Rann, the then premier.

We know that the cost of by-elections can range between $250,000 and $275,000 per seat, so it seems absurd that two by-elections in the neighbouring seats of Fisher and Davenport will be held on separate days. Fisher goes back to the polls, as I said, on 6 December, I think, while those in Davenport will have to wait until next year. Even though the Hon. Iain Evans, the member for Davenport, will give his valedictory speech tomorrow, 31 October 2014, those constituents will then have to wait until next year. Electoral Commissioner Kay Mousley, in The Australian on 22 October 2014, said:

It would make operational sense to hold both by-elections on the same day…There is not a great cost difference, but from an operational perspective there are advantages, as in we don’t have to repeat the same process within a couple of weeks of each other.

Kay Mousley indicated that it is 'very difficult' to hold a by-election in the January school holiday period. It is interesting that the commissioner said that, and I trust the government will take note. She was quoted as saying:

I have a concern to make sure that as many electors as possible can participate in the process, as typically by-elections have a lower turnout than for a normal election.

This is another reason for having both by-elections together. It gives a chance for the media and helps engage the focus of those who live in seats where the by-elections are occurring, particularly when the seats actually join (that is, Fisher and Davenport), to hold the by-elections on the same day. It also gives some respite to the rest of the state, who have probably had enough of federal, state and now local government elections.

Ms Mousley also indicated that she had tried to raise the issue with the Speaker (Michael Atkinson). This is very interesting, and I would ask colleagues to focus on this. Here we have Kay Mousley, the South Australian Electoral Commissioner, indicating that she tried to raise the issue with the Speaker. Interestingly enough, however, he allegedly refused to take her calls; I find that amazing. Accordingly, she had to write to him to discuss her concerns regarding the calling of two by-elections on separate days.

It was reported that the Electoral Commissioner would write to Labor's Mr Atkinson to object to his 'political' decision to hold one by-election on 6 December and the other one early next year. Incidentally, Mr President—I know you would be happy because you are very focused on protocol and procedure—Mr Atkinson was quoted in the same article as acknowledging the decision was 'inherently political'. According to that, the Speaker of the other place acknowledges that it was a political decision. To me, that alone says that we should support these amendments.

So, what does this bill do? First of all, this bill gives the power to decide on the dates of by-elections to the independent Electoral Commissioner; (2) the writs for by-elections are to be issued by the Electoral Commissioner on the day that he or she decides, after being notified by the Speaker of the day of the resignation of members; (3) there is a presumption that when two or more by-elections are called, unless there is a good reason, the by-elections will be set for the same day; and (4) in instances where one or more by-elections have been called and then the Electoral Commissioner is given notice of additional casual vacancy, the Electoral Commissioner must fix the by-elections for the same day if it is at all possible. It removes entirely what the Speaker in another place (Hon. Mr Atkinson) calls 'inherently political'.

What are our reasons for this bill? Family First does not believe it should be up to the Speaker of the day or the government, or both, to decide when by-elections occur. This can be used to the political advantage of those in power and undermines the democratic processes of the Westminster system, and also totally undermines the democracy that South Australians adore, want to protect and want to see enacted within the parliament.

It was reported on FIVEaa that the Speaker had not received the resignation of Mr Evans and therefore argued that he could not order an election for Davenport until next year. Yet, in The Australian, the Speaker was reported to have acknowledged the decision was 'inherently political'. Additionally, it has been reported that Labor was ready with a high-profile candidate in Fisher but does not appear to have one in Davenport.

Family First want debate on this issue. We believe that the democratic thing to do in this situation is to take the power away from any potential abuse or advantage through the fact that there is not an independent arbiter deciding on when the by-elections should occur, and therefore remove the risk of abusing the system to give advantage to one of the major parties against the other, irrespective of who is in government. We believe the best way to achieve this is to place the decision in the hands of an independent person, and in this case this bill says it is the Electoral Commissioner.

We also believe that there will be a cost saving, whilst minimal, it is a cost saving nonetheless. I finish with this as well: we all know that we are in a difficult economic situation in this state at the moment. We also know that we are heading towards the festive season, a celebration of the birth of Christ and all the benefits around Christmas. We also know that during that period there are school holidays.

We know that this state does not need undermining of confidence leading up to this period, and you only have to look at the retail figures in South Australia to see that retailers would love to see a booming Christmas. I put it to you that, given the very tenuous situation with respect to how the government holds office at the moment, it would be much better for confidence to hold both by-elections at the same time, to get rid of the what-ifs if Fisher is won or not won by the government or the Liberal Party, and the what-ifs if Davenport is won or not won by the Liberal Party or the government, the Labor Party.

We now have a situation where over that Christmas period there is a chance that there will be less confidence in this state and not more because people do not know what is going to happen. That is just a scenario about what is occurring right now, but the reality is that there will be other scenarios at any time when there are multiple by-elections. With those few words I commend this bill to the house. I think it is fair and reasonable that this bill should be supported for the reasons highlighted, and I look forward to a robust debate and a decision on this bill hopefully within two or three sitting weeks of the Legislative Council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.