Electoral (Funding, Expenditure, and Disclosure) Amendment Bill
16/10/2013
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I speak in favour of the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill 2013. The initial intent of this bill is a good one. Most other states and territory jurisdictions have had public funding for some time. The principles of providing public funding, limiting election expenditure and providing greater transparency for all political donations within our electoral system are noble ideals.
I would say, however, that Dignity for Disability is not at all impressed with the fashion that this particular change is being brought on for rapid debate this evening. I understand that, again, the major parties have forced debate to be brought on because they are in agreement with each other. Well, isn’t that nice! I do not know why the Attorney-General expressed concern that this legislative agenda is stifled by the good and honest debate of this Legislative Council yesterday when really all he has do to ram legislation through this chamber is combine with the opposition when he feels so inclined. It might be undemocratic, it might deny the many South Australians who voted for something other than the major parties to have their views represented, but, hey, it does not matter, the government can drill on with their panicked legislative agenda.
I find all of this quite ironic when the title of Premier Jay Weatherill’s press release of Tuesday 10 September 2013 announcing this bill is ‘Integrity’. I am not entirely sure, personally, how much integrity is involved in the directors and key players of the two major political parties holding high level discussions in relation to this bill, excluding the Independent and minor parties in discussion on this bill by urgently bringing on this debate.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office for providing a briefing on this bill and for their attempts to provide up-to-date information, despite the fact that they are probably struggling to keep up with the Attorney-General’s latest discussions. I would acknowledge that I have received the submission from the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia via their secretary, Deane Crabb, on this bill. The first serious concern the Electoral Reform Society raises is why this bill is being dealt with in such a hurried fashion. That is a very good question. It seems to be on a long list of urgent legislation we have been asked to pass in the next 11 days, as if this government did not have the last 11½ years to push through its agenda. Anyway, perhaps I am digressing just a little.
The Electoral Reform Society suggests that, given we are one of the last jurisdictions to put public electoral funding into operation, we should be doing so after consideration of a select committee. As this bill is not implementing public funding until the 2018 election, with some measures to be in place from 1 July 2015, the society queries the need for this bill to pass this week. Could the government please explain the reason for this urgent rush? Is the only possible moment that the major parties can agree on this issue today? Have the stars aligned in a way that I do not seem to understand and could the government please explain this?
The society also points out that the funding should be provided whether voting reaches 4 per cent or not. I know that interstate this does not occur, but the society argues that every vote should be given the same value so funding should be allocated accordingly whether a candidate achieves one vote or 250,000 votes. Why is this not the case in this legislation?
In summary, the society feels that if taxpayers are to pay for the privilege of there being fair and transparent election in this state, there also needs to be fair and transparent legislation, and I certainly agree with that concern. This process is not giving that impression, with discussion and deals being done behind closed doors.
