Motions
General state elections
Motion
Hon Rod Caddies (10:05 am) without notice: I move:
That the Legislative Council supports reducing the impact of state elections on the Western Australian environment and taxpayers by limiting political campaigning and advertising activities.
I move this motion today because the recent elections are still fresh in everyone's mind. I am sure we are all still a bit traumatised by the back-to-back elections that we have just endured. This motion is about making elections a better experience for everyone—candidates, volunteers, the environment, and, of course, the voters and taxpayers.
I start by painting a picture of what elections are like in Western Australia and the realities of modern campaigning. Modern campaigning is all about having a grand presence. That means having signs out, sending out pamphlets and having volunteers at polling booths to hand out how-to-vote cards. During every election, the community expresses its annoyance with the amount of resources that are wasted by political parties in the form of signs, how-to-vote cards and the constant junk mail that gets delivered and clogs up everyone's letterboxes. I know that I sure get a bit frustrated seeing how many things I get delivered to mine.
Voters do not want to be harassed when they go to vote. Voting should be a personal and safe experience. We really need to ask the questions: Why are elections such a negative experience for so many people? Why do most people look forward to an election being over? The reason is that they do not enjoy aggressive marketing campaigns that are intrusive, disingenuous and annoying. We have mandatory voting in Australia and the argument for the current practice of bombarding voters with advertising is that Australians are not very interested in politics. The argument is that parties and candidates need to be able to inform voters about party policies at polling places via advertising. This makes some sense. Voters should be able to access information at polling places and should be informed of party policies. But how much information is really communicated on how-to-vote cards, signs and junk mail? In a perfect world, all voters should be informed before they turn up to vote. A well-functioning democracy requires a population that is informed, educated and interested, but that is not the case. Many voters are very disengaged and have been conditioned to just follow the how-to-vote card of their preference brand when they turn up to vote.
Ultimately, how-to-vote cards are designed to exploit disengaged and disinterested voters. The reason I said "exploit" is because even the term "how to vote" is a bit misleading. It suggests that the card is an official instruction of some sort that must be followed, but every voter has a personal choice of where to allocate their preferences. A lot of people get confused, as we see all the time. People are always saying, "You're preferencing these people or those people", but, actually, these how-to-vote cards are just a bit of advice for people. How-to-vote cards are just a suggestion from a political party. I guess we could ask why they are not called something like "suggested voting order cards". The real purpose of a how-to-vote card is to be a last-minute point of sale or a trigger to remind a voter of a brand. Branding is a very powerful tool. There is a reason the large corporations spend billions of dollars on branding. We have a situation in Australia and Western Australia in which elections are won by party machines. Industrialised campaign machines are not there to educate voters; they are there to promote a brand. These industrial campaign machines have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo since they benefit the most from it. Big campaign machines with large amounts of money and volunteers are able to have the strongest brand presence at the election, so it is a big advantage for a candidate to have a lot of money behind them. They will argue that they have more money and more volunteers because they are more popular, and it is hard to argue against that. They can spend more on paid advertising, boosting social media posts, producing more content, and they are able to knock on more doors. They have a lot more resources at hand.
We have the same thing at every election—corflutes everywhere and a month of junk mail in all letterboxes to the point at which everyone starts to get sick of it. I think it brings a negative focus to politics because people get sick of all the junk mail. It is a bad thing for democracy because it starts turning people off politics when we really want to get more people educated in and have more interest in politics rather than turning them away. Then we have the two weeks of pre-poll as well as election day. Anyone who has done pre-poll, as I am sure many members in this room have, know it is a big time. It is not an easy feat, especially for minor parties, to have people on polling booths. The people in smaller parties tend to work a lot harder, I would say, than people in the major parties. They probably do not experience how hard it is to be on pre-polling for minor parties.
Anyway, voters sometimes have to run the gauntlet with aggressive, pushy volunteers at polling booths forcing the how-to-vote cards on them. The increase of aggression lately at the polling booths and between volunteers is a sad development. I have seen it at polling booths where people get aggressive with one another—and it is just politics. Some people treat it like it is their whole life and that the other party is their enemy. It is not a good thing for people to be watching. It is not a good thing for our volunteers. It is not a good thing for our parties when people see that and think that that is what politics is all about. The Western Australian Electoral Commission is forced to act as a peacekeeper between the overly passionate supporters of various causes. Some volunteers, voters and families feel intimidated at polling places, which is something we should not accept at election time. Volunteering at polling places should be a positive experience for everybody. People should be able to feel that they are going there to make a difference. It should be an enjoyable experience—not one in which they will see people be aggressive with them and one another even with how-to-vote cards.
As noted in an ABC news report last month, election volunteers say that they are experiencing more abuse and aggression at polling places. I know a lot about this because, being in One Nation, we have experienced a lot of that. Our volunteers are called racist bigots. There are all sorts of other baseless comments made by candidates. I have been called many of those names myself, plus extras. I can guarantee that I am none of the things that people continually call me just because I am involved in a particular party. It is not a good thing to experience that on election day or pre-polling.
Personally, I have not met a lot of people who enjoy standing around for two weeks handing out how-to-vote cards. People really do not want them. It is not a fun task for most people to do that. I do not know whether anyone else has experienced over the last however many years how voting has become more and more negative for people when they roll up. There used to be people who would at least take a how-to-vote card, but I think that is maybe now from where the aggression is coming—people just do not want them anymore. To make it worse, voters are forced to pay for all these things in the form of electoral expense reimbursements. It is estimated that millions of how-to-vote cards are printed in Western Australian elections alone. The cost of producing and distributing the how-to-vote cards and corflutes is substantial, and millions of dollars are reimbursed by the taxpayer to the parties, the individuals and independents. Obviously, when you get your 4%, you get reimbursed on that money spent, but it is still taxpayer money. It is not party money; it is the people's money.
That is how I would describe the current situation. I think it is an honest and accurate description of what election campaigns are these days and the public perception. Do we really want a democracy determined by marketing and advertising capacity? Do we want a democracy in which the party with the most money and resources gets instant competitive advantage over other parties or should we do everything we can to make our democracy about the contest of ideas? Western Australians are cynical and disengaged when it comes to our democracy, and I do not think this is a good thing for our state. There are reasons voters become cynical and disengaged. They can see that big money has big influence on the big campaign machines. They see that when Hon Ben Wyatt and Hon Mark McGowan now work for corporations that they were possibly regulating and are now possibly earning more money than they did as elected representatives. I do not say those names to shame, because I have had dealings with Hon Ben Wyatt and he was a lovely guy, but to point out that that is what people see. I know many of my friends have commented many times about politicians all of a sudden working for big corporations when they leave politics. Like I just said, they now work for corporations over which they once had influence in whether they make a lot more money or less or whether laws go through with all the regulations and stuff.
The public are aware of the recent Corruption and Crime Commission report Significant misconduct risks to good government thatlooked into possible inappropriate use of taxpayer resources by the Labor Party for campaigning purposes. For those in the chamber who have still not had a chance to read the report, I will quote from it now. John McKechnie, Corruption and Crime Commissioner, wrote about the benefit of having more campaigning resources. He stated:
If many of the approximately 190 full-time equivalent electorate officers do bow to the pressure and spend even a small percentage of their working hours on electioneering, that would equate to hundreds of taxpayer funded hours per week spent on furthering the private interests of a political party.
The result would be both a misuse of public resources for party-political purposes and a diminishing of the value of political equality through entrenching incumbency.
I highly recommend reading the Corruption and Crime Commission report. I understand there is an independent review of the findings and recommendations will soon be made in response to them.
So that is where we are. Our elections and our politics in general have become a poor experience for most people. We need to adjust the cynicism and disengagement. That is why I moved this motion. It is to us all to agree that there is a better way. We should significantly reduce the impact of elections on the environment and the taxpayer. There are many options for how to do this. We already place restrictions on what is allowed at polling places.
I will start with the how-to-vote cards. There are three types of voters when it comes to how-to-vote cards. The first is the collector who takes a how-to-vote card from every party out of courtesy. They just walk through. We all know those people. They walk along, grab every party's how-to vote cards and make a beeline for the door. The second type is the partisan supporter who knows exactly who they are voting for. They head for their party and grab the how-to-vote card to really make it clear that they are supporting that party. Then there is the third type of voter. This is the one who declines all the how-to-vote cards; the one who seems annoyed that they are even being offered one at all. We could consider getting rid of the practice of giving a voter a how-to-vote card and just display the how-to-vote cards from every individual party at a polling booth. Doing this would provide voters with the same level of information that they get from the how-to-vote cards that they want to follow. They could still do that. They will still be getting the same information. South Australia implemented a system in 1985 in which how-to-vote cards are consolidated and displayed directly within each polling booth. Doing this eliminated the need for individual distribution by volunteers at every polling place. It reduced waste and created a better voting experience for the vast majority of people and for the many people who were complaining about the harassment and aggression. The Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, just two years ago, suggested banning how-to-vote cards being handed out altogether at all booths. He stated that they are annoying and unnecessary in modern politics. For my friends on the other side, the Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas stated he was open-minded to this idea.
We should also consider our duty of care towards election volunteers. Is it a safe practice to have people stand outside in harsh conditions to hand out bits of paper to people who do not really want them, risking abuse? I had an experience—I was speaking to someone here about it, too, or it might have been in the other house—in Midland where it was chaos. The car park was terrible. People were nearly getting run over. I know of at least three occasions on which people in cars screamed on their brakes, with smoke coming from their tyres, as other people were crossing the road. There were jams up into the car park and people nearly getting run over by cars, so there are those risks as well. We have that duty of care. If one person loses their life or gets badly injured, that is one too many. Do we really want that happening? Therefore, that is one way we could reduce the impact of elections on the environment and taxpayers. We could look at doing that.
South Australia has also banned corflutes from public infrastructure, and from what I hear it has been a great success. The ABC reported in May that the feedback to the South Australian Government from the public had been overwhelmingly positive. The government stated that people are glad to see the visual pollution gone from their streets and the impact on their environment reduced. Voters are very happy about the reduction in environmental and visual pollution caused by corflutes on public infrastructure. Then we have the number of signs, booth wraps and other materials in polling places. Many people will agree this has got out of hand. There are just so many signs and it is like a maze to get through them these days. We could look to Tasmania, which has banned campaigning booths on election day altogether. This ban has been in place for years, reducing voter harassment and environmental waste. Interestingly, the Labor Party in Tasmania tried to push for how-to-vote cards in 1980; however, in response, the state implemented a system called "Robson rotation", which made how-to-vote cards completely obsolete. Robson rotation is the practice whereby the order of the ballot changes from ballot paper to ballot paper. Multiple versions of the ballot paper are created so person A's ballot paper and person B's ballot paper have a different order of candidates.
Noting the time, I think I will skip a heap of stuff. I did not think I would be talking so long here. There is a lot more I want to say; however, I will go right to the end.
I want to make clear that there was a lot I wanted to talk about in the debate on this motion, such as branding and everything, but this motion does not require members to agree on any specific changes that could be made. It is just asking all members to agree or disagree with reducing the impact of elections on the environment and on taxpayers. If we all agree to this motion, we can then set-up processes to make the necessary changes and reforms and figure out the details, with real input from the crossbench and opposition, which has been lacking in the past four years. By agreeing to this motion, we can take a collective step towards restoring the trust engagement in our democratic system.
I commend this motion to the house.
The President: Members, the question is that the motion be agreed to. The Minister for the Environment is the lead speaker for the government
Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) (10:25 am): Thank you, President. Yes, I am providing the government's response today, and I thank the member for bringing this motion to the house. We had a conversation behind the chair last night when I commended Hon Rod Caddies for the tone of the motion today. This is a good opportunity for us to have a broad discussion in this chamber about the matters that he has raised. For non-government business and private members' business on Thursdays, there is never any particular vote at the end of it, so we can perhaps all talk as freely as we like about matters, without that ultimate requirement to have the formal endorsement of the house. But, as I say, I think there is merit in the motion the member has put forward here.
For me, I think the member's motion has two real elements. After having heard the member's contribution, the first is general activities around election time, connected to how-to-vote cards in particular, but also the tone of what elections are now like. We are all responsible for how people who represent us on election booths behave, so we all have an opportunity through our volunteers and party bodies to ensure that we are as civil as possible. I would always encourage everybody to focus on civil political discourse and avoid the unnecessary actions that happen in other parts of the world. It would be fair to say that in Australia, notwithstanding that incidents of tension arise and perhaps, sadly, sometimes violence at polling booths, it is a rare occurrence, and, overwhelmingly, we proceed with our elections in an orderly and civil manner.
When it comes to how-to-vote cards, I agree with the member that a couple of kinds of categories of voters come through the polling booth. I add that because we have had a culture in Western Australia of how-to-vote cards, a large number of people who attend polling booths expect to be presented with a how-to-vote card. I have stood at polling booths when people have often asked for another party's how-to-vote card, and it is a matter of courtesy that if it is available, one will often find it and give it to them because, obviously, we want individual voters' experiences of elections to be memorable for positive reasons rather than for negative reasons.
In terms of the environmental aspect of how-to-vote cards, there is a factor, which the member did not mention in his contribution, that I think is really important to remind the house; that is, it was this government that banned single-use plastics, and that policy extended to election materials as well. Members may recall in the past that bunting, as it is known, used to absolutely plaster election polling booths. Bunting is that thin film plastic. People would put them on school fences and the like, and there would be literally hundreds of metres on any school. We banned that bunting in 2023 I think it was. My notes here state that the major political parties each used up to 1,000 rolls, or 50 kilometres, of single-use plastic promotional film during the 2022 federal election. That did not happen at the last election. Immediately before the last federal election, as the Minister for the Environment, I wrote to each registered federal political party reminding them that in Western Australia the use of that material is prohibited—and as far as I can tell that was respected. Therefore, we can say that as a community and through the actions and the policies of this government, we stopped 50 kilometres at least of single-use plastics entering into our environment. Those single-use plastics are particularly damaging because not only are they just for single use, but also they break down in a way that is not very good for the environment. We have taken that out of circulation, which I think was an important step.
The other really important matter to take into consideration is the reforms this government introduced through the Electoral Amendment (Finance and Other Matters) Act 2023 that relate to political financing. This government introduced state election spending caps of $130,000 for a Legislative Assembly seat and $65,000 for a candidate in the Legislative Council. Those caps have the effect of not allowing an arms race around political material of the kind the member referred to, because each political party and candidate must now carefully consider how they will spend the money they want to put towards an election. I think the caps come into place on the day the writs are issued and extend to the close of polling. That means that during that period, people cannot spend more than $130,000 on those materials. They also cannot spend in advance with a view to stockpiling things such as a whole heap of corflutes. For example, they cannot spend $300,000 on corflutes in January before the writs are issued in February. That cannot be done, because pre-spending counts towards the cap. That was a significant change from previous elections, and we are of the view that that probably reduced the total amount of material for all political parties in the Western Australian community. The kind of materials we are talking about are plastic corflutes and other forms of paper-based communication—for example, the stuff that comes through the mail. The cap also applies to how-to-vote cards—we call them cards but they are ordinary pieces of paper—so political parties and candidates obviously need to be more careful and considered.
One issue that always arises when we talk about how we conduct our elections is the constitutional limitations on what any government can do to limit political communication, because that is an implied right under the Constitution. When the government does make changes in this area, we are very careful to make sure that we do what we can without breaching that implied freedom. I suggest that the imposition of those kinds of prohibitions in other states, such as on providing how-to-vote cards at polling booths, would not necessarily stand up to a constitutional challenge. We talk about the right to engage in political communication. As the member identified, the time that an elector is about to cast their vote is probably the key time at which somebody might turn their mind to how they might cast their vote, and we should therefore be entitled to communicate with them. The way in which we mostly communicate with them is through the material provided at the polling booth. We always need to take that consideration into account. What I will say is that a lot of people are now self-selecting away from the physical how-to-vote cards. I do not know whether other members, when they were on the polling booths, picked up that people had them on their phones. People could access how-to-vote cards through webpages and therefore refused to take them. I think the feedback loop to political bodies will be that we will need fewer physical how-to-vote cards because people will rely on the how-to-vote card on their screen rather than wanting to take a piece of paper. Those are all the things that have to be balanced.
In terms of what the member put forward, there is no question that further work could potentially be looked at in time. Each political party is obviously entitled to put forward any changes they would like to see to the electoral framework to reduce the impact on the community and the environment from those kinds of activities. I do not have a lot more to add. I commend the member for the motion he has brought forward. I will say that the government made steps in previous years to reduce the impact that elections have on the environment, and we will probably continue to look at those sorts of things going forward, taking into consideration, of course, everybody's entitlement to continue to communicate as freely as they like with people who are about to cast their vote.
Hon Tjorn Sibma (10:34 am): I will speak only briefly because I know that other speakers wish to address the motion. First of all, I would like to congratulate Hon Rod Caddies on bringing this item of business forward for consideration during the non-government business session on Thursday. It actually comes somewhat as a relief that it is not being debated with ferocious energy but is being dealt with in a calm, methodical and reflective tone, which is unusual for a Thursday morning, as the President will acknowledge and understand.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I've only just arrived!
Hon Tjorn Sibma: Hon Dr Steve Thomas has just walked in the door so emotions might perhaps now elevate a number of orders of magnitude!
A very serious issue is at stake, and that is the management of electoral affairs in the jurisdiction of Western Australia. I think it is healthy that these issues are subject to debate in this chamber in this way, rather than, for example, the practice of the government during the course of the 41st Parliament to change electoral laws in this state on four occasions without any consultation whatsoever. A number of those bills were actually deeply consequential. If we want to effectively reflect on the rules of democratic engagement, I think that conversation needs to include all credible political practitioners; it cannot be the case that just one party writes the rules.
I do not necessarily think the management of electoral affairs in this jurisdiction is anything to be exceptionally proud of at the moment, considering the way in which the last state election was administered. This fact was obviously recognised by the government, with the appointment of Hon Malcolm McCusker to inquire into the administration arrangements. I note that the special inquiry is due to provide its report to the government at the end of this month. I very much look forward to reading its contents, because that should precipitate some form of further action. By way of reflecting on this, because this can be a broadly based discussion, I hope that the contract the Western Australian Electoral Commission entered into with the firm PersolKelly is exposed for public consumption. I still hope that that contract was made available to those members assisting His Honour with that special inquiry. Indeed, I will be asking the government to table that contract during question time today. I am not necessarily optimistic that my request will be granted, but we will see how we go.
I have made a number of reflections since the election on how the consideration of electoral affairs in the broadest possible sense, including the kind of material that is produced and the amount of publicly available financing that is dedicated to the practice, might be better done through a standing committee of this Parliament. Western Australia, as a jurisdiction, is an aberration. For example, I believe that a standing committee of the New South Wales Parliament inquires into electoral affairs. That is also the case in Victoria and Tasmania. I think it is also the case in South Australia. It seems to me to be very odd that we do not have a specific reference for that in Western Australia. The other chamber has dealt with these matters previously through its Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, but I think if we want to give deliberative, slow and meaningful consideration to a number of the issues Hon Rod Caddies just raised, the house for that kind of cerebral work is this house.
I think I have identified the committee that should do it, and that is the Standing Committee on Public Administration. I forget which of my esteemed colleagues are on that committee, but if they are on it, I encourage them to think about dedicating some of their energy to inquiring into the health of electoral affairs management in the state of Western Australia and what can be done to improve community engagement and civics education. I think that a lot of the estrangement and disaffection that Hon Rod Caddies reflected on during his experience at the polling booth finds some of its origin in the fact that we do not dedicate enough energy and resolve as parliamentarians to explain and defend the importance of democratic engagement among our polity. We are as much to blame for the disaffection as anybody else, and I think we have a special responsibility to uphold and improve civics education, appreciation of what is going on and the importance of it. For the record, I do not want this to be a sanitised process necessarily. There is room, and there must be room made, in the public square for robust discourse, but it must be lawful and decent. Sometimes people's passions get the better of them and that is unfortunate, but it is part of the risk, frankly, of democratic engagement. It would be worse if there was no debate, no energy at all. That would have a deadening influence on the democratic impulse.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Sounds like Parliament!
Hon Tjorn Sibma: Possibly in an earlier era!
I will identify a facet, albeit very briefly, that I think gets to the resource-intensity of electoral campaigns as have been run in the state of Western Australia. Hon Rod Caddies identified a point of aggravation that I share and that is the extended nature of pre-poll and early voting. The most recent example was actually a blessed relief, because during 2021 with the COVID protocols there was almost a three-week pre-poll period. That has been short-circuited, to a degree, to a fortnight in the recent example. I think that has a perverse impact on democratic engagement. It commoditises the voting process. Democratic engagement through coming to a polling booth on the traditional day is a great point of civic engagement, and I think we dilute it by effectively putting voting on the to-do list of your daily engagements, somewhere between filling up the tank, dropping the kids off at school or going to the shops to get a bottle of milk because your fridge is bare. We have inadvertently diminished the importance of casting a vote, the most important decision that we can have, frankly, in our democratic environment, by making voting more convenient than it should be. We all want a voter to be informed, for them to have given their vote some consideration and to have a stake in the outcome, whether or not they get the outcome they potentially wished for. This is a very healthy debate. I compliment Hon Rod Caddies for bringing it to the chamber's attention, and I hope these kinds of issues remain foremost in our minds for the rest of the 42nd Parliament.
Hon Dr Brian Walker (10:43 am): I thank Hon Rod Caddies for bringing forward this very important motion, and also thank the house for the reasoned spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I might perhaps raise the temperature little bit in advance of Hon Dr Steve Thomas because the question I have is: Is democracy actually at risk? I contend that it is. I take the points made by Hon Tjorn Sibma about diminished democracy in the form of pre-poll and online voting. I think it is quite acceptable; I agree with that. There is this mingling at the common weal of the green when we exchange our views and meet our fellow citizens, but that is another matter altogether. I will come to what Hon Rod Caddies was saying about the environment and the cost to the taxpayer in a moment, but first I refer to an article in today's or yesterday's paper about Cottesloe, where multiple high-rise buildings have been proposed but are opposed by 90% of the population and completely opposed by the local government. State planning will probably approve the project because most times when state planning takes over from local government, the approval is granted in opposition to local government. The question here is: How much democracy is there? A small group of people are making a decision in the face of the expressed democratic view of the population and the local government. Is this acceptable in our society? Apparently the answer is yes because money talks. There is a question here of cui bono—who benefits from this? It is not us. It is not the residents and it is not the local government; it is the developer who is putting that through. We had an example—was it yesterday?—in members' statements in which Hon Phil Twiss was talking about the hills being assaulted. Was it him?
Hon Amanda Dorn: It was me.
Hon Dr Brian Walker: It was Hon Amanda Dorn. The people's voice has been repeatedly ignored by developers for the developers' profit, of course, and to the exclusion of the democratic voice of the people and the local government. We see this again and again. That is just a mirror of what passes for democracy in our state. We could go on and ask how much money plays a role in elections, and I put it to members that it plays quite a large role, hence the large influence obtained by those who have the money to buy the legislation that currently passes through our government. The question I have is: Are the people any better off 10 years on, 20 years on or 30 years on with this continuing flow of money buying legislation? Are we any better off under this democratic system? I put it to members that we are not. Is this serving the population? We could say that real-time donation data shows the Labor and Liberal Parties entering the 2025 poll with markedly larger war chests than all the minor parties combined. Is this democratic? It is certainly legal. There is nothing wrong with it. They are not breaking any laws, but I ask: Does it serve the purpose of democracy? There is also modern campaign psychology, with money going into the advertising, corflutes and how-to-vote cards. Modern campaign psychology aims to bypass critical reflection. We have a disengaged, disenchanted, disinformed public rocking up on one day in four years, or one period, to express a democratic view, but the rest the time the democratic view is entirely ignored. We might even argue that the democratic view is blurred by the manipulation of votes caused by the style in which we campaign. This is a problem.
We come now to how-to-vote cards. I personally take exception to this—how to vote. I anticipate, certainly within my party, that there is a variety of views. I have to explain to the members of my party why I am saying certain things, because they disagree with me, but I am the elected member and I am able to justify those things. In a large party—looking at the Labor and Liberal sides here—I am absolutely certain that there are members who have varying views that do not accord with currently but fit into the general direction of the party because it is for the benefit of the party. We therefore have how-to-vote cards, assuming that this person who will vote for this party will have exactly the same views as every other member of the party. That is actually quite impudent. I would prefer that the individual is able to vote for number one—of course, Legalise Cannabis WA Party, I would put it to you!—but thereafter is able to choose where they stand. I know that in my party there are people with more right-wing views or left-wing views and they will have a choice about whom they prefer to put second because it is not just about the first past the post, it is about who else will stand and represent their views in this place as their elected representative. This is an important facet of democracy, but it is not happening.
My colleague Hon Rod Caddies mentioned the Robson Rotation system in Tasmania, which I think is a wonderful idea. The idea is to have a ballot to see who is first because all the donkey votes are going to be "page one, tick, off I go" because those people are not engaged with the political processes. A sizeable chunk of the vote is not spent on having thoughtfully wondered which party represents their stance the most, but how they can cast a donkey vote—they are doing their civic duty—and quickly get out of there so they can go home and have a beer. The Robson Rotation system would help avoid that.
Hon Tjorn Sibma mentioned the Standing Committee on Public Administration, of which I am a member. I would happily not deal with this election system because it is such a big topic. Our standing committee would be an appropriate venue for this. If Parliament suggested that we take this on board, I am sure the committee would listen. That is not my preferred option, but it needs to be done. I heartedly recommend that such an important facet of our democracy is properly examined on a regular basis.
Running the gauntlet of the corflutes and the lines of people all clamouring for a vote at pre-poll has been mentioned. We had a problem at the pre-poll in Rockingham. The position was not quite right. Questions were asked by the Western Australian Electoral Commission about how we were going to structure it. It was not well-organised at all. We had members standing outside Palmerston House, which, of course is an anti-drug and rehabilitation centre. People looked at our members as though they supported people being under the influence of cannabis, which is entirely wrong. But with that, they came out and threatened violence to our volunteers. We were going to call the police because of affronts to the Electoral Act. The Deputy Electoral Commissioner dealt with this admirably without having to call the police, but that was the next step. It is intolerable in our free society that we need to consider the safety of our volunteers—it is entirely wrong.
We are also considering public donations to parties. Yes, legislation will allow for levelling of the playing field. But if we look at the 500 Club or the Labor Party and Perth Trades Hall and how finances are funnelled, it is not applicable with the legislation. They are legal vehicles, but they deprive the minor and micro parties. We do not have that facility. The vast sums of money, which could flow if we were lucky enough, would not be managed in the same way; they would be treated differently. That is not fair. When it comes to large donations and manipulation of information, what about truth in elections? I call to mind the way that people mentioned, for example, that the other party was threatening the existence of Medicare: "You'll lose your ability to attend a doctor. Vote for us because we'll keep you safe" or whichever straw argument was put up. We mind read what the other party is saying and assume that our mind read is correct and therefore, "You, the public, must vote with us because you don't want to follow our mind read; it's a bad thing for you." This is entirely normal and typical for an election campaign, and it must stop. We do not have a democracy; we have the illusion of a democracy. The real questions are whether we are adversely affecting the truth and whether the people are well served. They are not. Does democracy really benefit from our current system in which one-third of the vote can give a party 100% of the control? I put it to members—no.
Hon Rob Horstman (10:53 am): I thank Hon Rod Caddies for providing me with the opportunity to speak on some of the elements of this motion. It is fair to say that all parties have a responsibility to reduce the impact of their campaign material on Western Australian people. It is fair to say that all political parties want their message to be heard. However, the question is: At what cost do we want that message to be heard? What are we willing to allow that cost to be? Political parties spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on single-purpose materials at every election. It is the responsibility of parties to reduce the impact of this material. Obviously, this means recycling, using better materials and innovating, something that we can all look to do more of in this space.
We are currently waiting to see what was expended during the 2025 state election. I am interested to see where the social media spend lands for different parties. I had a conversation with a member of the Nationals WA campaign team who said they had seen something on Instagram. There were more members in the Labor TikTok team than there were in the entire National Party campaign team during the last election. I am very interested in the social media element. To be fair, the fact that the WA Nationals campaign team was smaller than the Labor TikTok team made the election results of the WA Nationals even more impressive. That is probably a discussion for another time.
Turning to environmental considerations, the ban on single-use plastics, which was mentioned by Hon Matthew Swinbourn, has changed the materials used by political parties. The Nationals have strongly encouraged candidates and MPs to use recycling services for materials like corflutes. Like many parties, the Nationals WA deliver a lot of material to the core environmental centre to be broken down. That place was absolutely inundated after the election with recyclables. Meanwhile, generic material is re-used, as it was during the federal election. Members have commented that we obviously had back-to-back elections, with a lot of us spending time at various pre-poll booths all over the state. I agree with the member who spoke about pre-polling booths and what that brings. Hon Tjorn Sibma referred to the commoditisation of that. Those are all good elements.
Many Nationals candidates donated corflutes to local shooting ranges—the ones that are left, obviously—to use as backing for targets. This is something that the Nats have done for decades.
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Rob Horstman: No, backings. Thank you, Hon Dan Caddy, for getting that in there; I was waiting for it!
Corflutes can also appear in some of the most unexpected places. Yesterday, I listened avidly to the who's who of associations and cooperatives around WA. It made me think of the opportunity I had to give some corflutes to local community art ventures in Northampton. They put base paint around the corflutes and use them as canvases, which I thought was an excellent idea. They are also being used at the base of flowerbeds. All over WA, we have, in a political sense, this organic reach out of helping with the proliferation of garden beds.
On quite a more serious note, after Cyclone Seroja, people were living in houses without windows, and many corflutes were used as insulation around those windows. It was quite humbling to see people doing that, although I noticed that the pictures of candidates were facing outwards so that the people inside did not have to look at them! I thought that was fair. After the 2021 election, political parties were able to provide corflutes to insulate people's homes, particularly those who were living in "shouses" as they affectionately became known—sheds that effectively became houses.
Advertising on polling day was mentioned; I could not agree more. I was fortunate for the most part to run two campaigns during the last election, both of which were successful, I might add. Most of us, again, doubled up for the federal campaign. We spent a lot of time in this space. It gave me a really good insight into the advertising on polling day and during an election campaign. On that note, we can probably all agree that we want Clive Palmer to lose the phone number of every Australian; I certainly do after that interesting experience. More important is the idea of teaching volunteers to respect each other and of teaching people respect for individuals.
As Hon Tjorn Sibma said, the ability to participate in the democratic process should be an incredibly exciting moment for everyone. I saw the look of abject fear on some people's faces as they ran the gauntlet. I was at one pre-polling station for the federal election where it got to the point that people were saying, "Put your hands up", like a wedding aisle. There were people on either side, all the way up and down. It was very intimidating for some people.
Accessibility is something else. Although political advertising is frustrating for some, it can be a nightmare for people who are struggling with overstimulation or sensory overload from being bombarded with political material while voting. I strongly believe we should consider allocating booths with additional restrictions on political canvassing to create—
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The Electoral Commission did provide some of those. There weren't a lot, but at this election there were some for people who are sensitive to that stuff.
Hon Rob Horstman: Okay, thank you. Yes, I think the basis of creating that calmer environment for people with processing disorders and disabilities, to ensure everyone can feel safe when casting their vote, is very important. Just touching again on some of the elements of Hon Rod Caddies's contribution to his motion, the respect that we can all garner from a more affable election process would be good. Social media is something that is proliferating and can also lead to a lack of respect between parties and, indeed, various people who are looking to vote and get information out there.
In summary, we all have a responsibility to reduce the impact of elections on the environment and Western Australians. I thank Hon Rod Caddies for the opportunity to speak to that point.
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt (11:01 am): I want to thank Hon Rod Caddies for moving this motion as it is a really good motion to discuss. The key element that I want to reflect upon is that the impact of state elections on the Western Australian environment is certainly worthy of discussion. In this context, Western Australia, in many ways, has done some really good work in getting rid of single-use plastics. As Hon Matthew Swinbourn said, there has been some work on this in relation to elections but there is plenty more we could do. It would be really worthwhile to have a mandated cradle-to-grave approach in creating, using, recycling and disposing of election materials. We are hearing this debate all around the world about how countries are greening their elections. To give members some diverse examples, India of all places has taken a real lead in eliminating single-use plastics in their elections, driving this idea. Going back to 2019, they even banned corflutes. We see a huge level of waste. I acknowledge there have been some attempts to reduce some of the single-use plastic waste, but anyone who went to a polling booth over the last few months would have seen that it is reaching ridiculous levels. I do not feel like I need the same face with the same message plastered everywhere to the extent that it is. I do not think it is serving democracy or necessarily helping, but it is having a huge environmental impact. It would be a really worthwhile thing for government to do—looking at ways that our waste footprint and the kinds of materials that have been used could be further reduced.
To give an example that people might have noticed, in the last few years the Australian Electoral Commission decided that their booths, where people fill out who they are voting for on a ballot paper, would be just brown cardboard. The commission stopped wrapping them in purple and white so that they could be recycled. I think that is a really good example and the Western Australian Electoral Commission could follow that lead to make sure these kinds of things are better recycled going forward.
A more radical question is asking whether there are benefits around online voting or less paper voting for example. One study in Estonia showed that the carbon footprint of paper-based voting was 180 times greater than the footprint of internet-based voting. I appreciate that there are challenges around that and that is a big one, but we can look at whether we need everything to be printed. I think how-to-vote cards are an interesting point. I appreciate that they have become expected, but there is no reason why we could not use better ways that are not as wasteful as handing out these huge amounts of paper. It is really great to see so much of this waste reduction happening. The last example I will give is from last year. The United Kingdom's Westminster Foundation for Democracy outlined a whole bunch of strategies for reducing election pollution around supply chains and packaging. I think lots of really good things are happening in this space around the world and even in Australia. Whilst I was doing a bit of research for this, I had a look at the WAEC's last annual report and interestingly, there are no KPIs around waste or any environmental factors at all. I think there is a real opportunity for that to happen and to ask how it can reduce its footprint going forward and improve these things.
Elections do have a big footprint. In a quick calculation on the back of an envelope, I worked out that at the last state election the WAEC amassed 25,000 pencils, 24,000 vests, 8,000 ballot boxes, 500 rolls of tamper-proof paper and all the stock for the more than 700 polling places around the state. That all adds up to a lot and if we can green that and make that recyclable or, if it is not recyclable, reuseable, and reduce the advertising and the impact that leads up to that, I think that would be a really good step in the right direction. I want to thank Hon Rod Caddies for bringing that to our attention.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (11:06 am): "The day after the state of Queensland won the State of Origin" is a good way to begin a contribution.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Point of order—relevance!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I have already got them stirred up, Acting President. I would like to congratulate Hon Rod Caddies for his motion that the Legislative Council supports reducing the impact of state elections on the Western Australian environment and taxpayers by limiting political campaigning and advertising activities. Of course, I want to start with the most obvious statement that I have not heard today, which is that the biggest impact that we have had from the last few elections is the election of a Labor government that has a problem with truth in advertising. I think this is a great motion because we could use a bit of truth in advertising, as we could use a bit of truth in the chamber. That is what we have not had.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: With the howls of protest from the opposite side, it was a bit like the New South Wales supporters last night! Let me give members a couple of examples. I will go back to 2017 because we want to talk about the entire election of the Labor government, all the way back to the former Premier. What are the things that it did in its first election? The most obvious lie from the start was about gold-standard transparency! Have a look at the answers to my questions yesterday and then try to compare that with gold-standard transparency. That was the first lie introduced into the election in 2017: "We will deliver gold-standard transparency." I got an answer back yesterday on part 4 that said it was not applicable to a question that had not been referenced anywhere else. It was "Not applicable." They just did not want to answer that one because they were a little bit embarrassed by the result. A little bit of truth in advertising would be good—gold-standard transparency. That was the government's first problem. Just in case that was a one-off aberration, I want members to realise that the Labor Party has a bit of history on this. There is a trend. If it happens more than once, it is a trend. I like this little article from an excellent journalist who is no longer there, Jessica Strutt. A great journalist operating in the ABC—
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It is truth in advertising, member. You could use a little! Let us pass you on a little bit—truth in advertising. The article from October 2017 states:
The McGowan Government's announcement in its first budget last month of increases to the gold royalty rate and payroll tax were broken election promises.
There were broken election promises all the way back to 2017.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Go for your life and try to call a point of order; it will not work! Go for your life, honourable member. When members opposite start to feel uncomfortable, they try to hide behind the standing orders. They do not use the standing orders when they are answering questions, because answers are supposed to be relevant to the questions. When the standing orders are useful, they use them.
That was in 2017. The government talked about gold-standard transparency. In the last eight years, it has disappeared. There has been false advertising. The government said, "We won't raise taxes"; then there was the gold tax. Luckily, that was defeated in this chamber two Parliaments ago, and some members are present who will remember this. It was defeated, and eventually the government had to give up on that one. Well done! It was defeated, but—
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: What's the gold price today?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Was it a broken promise?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: What's the gold price today? Answer the question.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Did the government take it to an election? Did you take it to an election, minister? Was it a broken promise? We know it was a broken promise. What happened, of course, was that members of the government, assuming that they were good financial managers, simply assumed that with the change of government, there would suddenly be a budget that would go into surplus. When they realised it had not, they had to start putting up taxes, so they had to break their promise. Truth in advertising was out the window. But it is not the only time. In case members need a third example of a situation in which truth in advertising was actually a useful process, let us talk about our own chamber—the election of members into the Legislative Council of Western Australia. Prior to the 2021 election, the Premier was in Albany, where a very clever ABC journalist—some of the Liberals do like the ABC—asked the then Premier whether he was going to change the electoral processes in the upper house. He said, "That's not on our agenda." In the lead-up to the election, he said "That's not on our agenda."
Hon Tjorn Sibma: How many times did he say that?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: How many times—was it nine times?
Hon Tjorn Sibma: Seven times.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: He said it seven times, Hon Tjorn Sibma. "That's not on the agenda." Truth in advertising—"That's not on the agenda." How long did that last?
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: How long did that last? That is not on the agenda, but there we go. We are now elected for the entire state through a process that was not on the agenda—
Hon Tjorn Sibma interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes, I am actually being quiet. I lost a bit of my voice last night, so I have to take it a bit more slowly than usual, minister. The Premier said multiple times that it was not on the agenda. What happened? There was some advantage to the Labor Party in that big particular win, and immediately it was on the agenda. It was not working through; it was immediate. He said "That's not on the agenda" and immediately it was on the agenda. There is an absolute trend here.
Do members want to know something else that the Labor Party promised in 2017?
Hon Tjorn Sibma: Tell me more.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I will. Prior to the election, the then shadow Treasurer, the man who became the Treasurer, Hon Ben Wyatt, a good fellow, made a particular promise with the Premier around debt reduction. There was a nice media release. It was lovely. It said:
Debt Reduction Strategy: New legislation to reduce Colin Barnett's debt
The key issue was this.
Hon Dan Caddy: How much was that debt?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: How much has the government taken it down in the biggest boom we have ever seen? Where is it projected to end up in today's budget, member? Is the government going to take it to $40 billion in today's budget?
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Come on—in the first two budgets that this government came in with, it was back over $40 billion. I reckon it will probably be over $40 billion at the end of the forward estimates this time, too. We will have a look this afternoon and we will find out.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes, but this is what my good friend Hon Ben Wyatt—
Several members interjected.
The Acting President (Hon Dr Brian Walker): Order, members! Order! I am enjoying this as much as anyone else, but I would like to have some mercy on the voice of our member, who has actually been shouting last night. I would like to hear more of you and less of the opposition. May I ask that, please.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Thank you. I would like to make that a trend for the entire Parliament, Acting President, if we could.
This is the announcement by the government of 11 February 2017 in the lead-up to that particular election in which it was elected to government. The legislation was promised as a part of its debt reduction strategy. The announcement said:
The legislation will see 50 per cent of iron ore royalty revenue directed into the new Debt Reduction Account when WA's GST relativity returns to above 0.65 and the iron price is more than $85 per tonne.
Guess what? The iron ore price has slipped a bit. It is, what, $92 a tonne today. It has barely gone below—
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Half of iron ore royalties. It got up to $12 billion a year. In one year, the government should have put $5.5 billion to $6 billion into the debt reduction account to reduce debt. That is what the government promised to do.
Hon Dan Caddy: What about your debt?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: We will work out what your debt is going to in a few hours, member. In a few hours, we will find that out. This government promised to put half of iron ore royalties in. I thought this was a great statement. It continues:
Announcing the first of series of initiatives as part of the Debt Reduction Strategy, Shadow Treasurer Ben Wyatt said legislation was vital to guaranteeing no future government is able to mismanage the finances …
Then he said, "This is what the legislation is going to do", and then he did not do it. Before the election, there was a debt reduction strategy of 50% of iron ore royalties. After the election—nothing. Before the election, the Premier said, "It is not on our agenda to change the upper house election process". After the election, it changed. Before the election in 2017, there were to be no new taxes. After the election—new taxes. There is a trend here, people, and, most importantly, before the 2017 election—I do not even have time to deal with the environment. I thought that was good; we could have spent some time talking about the government's failings in the environment. The minister is here to talk about it, but I am not going to have time. I feel as though I should seek an extension. I could keep going. Most importantly, there was the government's commitment to gold-standard transparency. That was an election commitment. These were all election commitments, and these are all failures of this government's election commitments. It has let the people of Western Australia down because it has not lived up to its election commitments. There are plenty of issues in the election; we will go through that and find out where it could have been done better, and lots of that we probably will not be able to sheet home to the government. It will not necessarily be the government's fault. I am sure the government will be able to handball a fair bit of that responsibility. But the government's responsibility is to keep its election commitments, and the most important one is gold-standard transparency, and it has utterly failed to do that for eight years.
Hon Lauren Cayoun (11:17 am): Thank you for that fiery contribution. I cannot guarantee mine will be as fiery, but I will try to stick to the subject matter.
I thank Hon Rod Caddies for bringing the motion. I do not disagree with the spirit of it, especially having just come off the back of two back-to-back elections as the Deputy Director of the Labor Party, the idea of curtailing some campaigning activity is one that is quite attractive to me right now. However, obviously, my very strong view is that we have to be careful about doing things that potentially risk undermining our democracy, which I think is in a very healthy place, especially when we look around the world at other election campaigns and democracies. We definitely have a good, moderate campaigning culture here in Australia and Western Australia that I think we should seek to preserve.
I imagine that the government agrees very much with the intent of the member's motion in considering the environment when we look at campaigning and the regulation of campaigning and spending funds wisely, and most especially in a way that is transparent and regulated so that the public can have confidence in it. Electoral expenditure is incurred by political parties. They raise money through donations, so, in that sense, taxpayers do not fund a lot of that. However, I take the member's point that through the electoral return process, some of that cost does come back to political parties from the taxpayer.
On the point of environment, as the Minister for the Environment pointed out, we banned bunting in 2024, when Hon Reece Whitby was the Minister for Environment, and I believe we were the first state in the country to ban single-use plastic promotional film, which is excellent and builds on other good environmental initiatives from the government, like our Plan for Plastic and our container deposit scheme. As the minister pointed out, political parties are estimated to use around 1,000 rolls or 50 kilometres of single-use bunting. I remember during the Canning by-election in 2015, it would have been, the Labor Party produced some bunting with half Tony Abbott on the top, half Matt Keogh on the bottom. Of course, Tony Abbott was replaced as Prime Minister just before the election, which meant a lot of us campaign lackeys had to cut I think around five kilometres of bunting. Luckily, the authorisation was on the bottom half, so we could still use that. Certainly, in that respect, I have firsthand experience of the volume of plastic used during elections. I think that it is really good that the referendum would have been first vote here in Western Australia where we did not use plastic bunting. Political parties have adapted and now use alternatives like corflutes, which we can take to a recycling centre. I know the Labor Party encourages our campaign teams to collect that bunting and either reuse it—in my case, I have a lot of Stephen Price lining my garden boxes, which is really useful!—or drop it off at a recycling centre to have some confidence that it has been recycled. Making sure that our campaigns are as environmentally friendly as possible is definitely important to our party, as is, of course, the question of electoral expenditure, which is why we brought in laws by John Quigley at the time to change the way that we do things in some electoral expenditure regulations.
A major part of that reform is transparency. I do not think that the concern of the public is about the volume of money that is spent so much as understanding how political parties come to receive that money and having a transparent process to enable them to see that. The last election was the first election at which political parties were faced with having to disclose electoral expenditure in what we call real time during the official campaign period. Any donation or cumulative donations from a person above $2,600 during that campaign period had to be disclosed within 24 hours. Outside that campaign period, it had to be disclosed within seven days. That provides transparency for the public. I note that the Western Australian Electoral Commission was of great assistance to political parties in putting that process together. The portal was really user-friendly from the Labor Party's perspective, and in my view, that process was relatively smooth.
Another reform was of course spending caps, which goes to the heart of what Hon Rod Caddies' motion is about. Electoral spending caps that apply to political parties, candidates and third-party campaigners aim to deliver fairer election campaigns and level the playing field. The maximum that a Legislative Assembly candidate was able to spend on capped expenditure during that formal election period was $130,000. If we break that down and consider that a postage stamp these days costs $1.50, that is really not enough money across that campaign prop-up period to do even three pieces of mail to each elector. We are not talking about a huge amount of money. It does level that playing field. Realistically, that gives a political candidate in a lower house seat the opportunity to perhaps send a piece of mail, do some Facebook advertising and have enough money left over to decorate their booths on election day. It is not a huge amount of money. The other component there was the implementation of a global cap. If a political party runs a candidate per seat, they get an amount of money. If they do not spend that full amount—for example, if they do not spend that full $130,000—the remainder of that money goes into what we termed a "global cap", which can be spent on things like TV and radio advertising. Essentially, if a major political party runs candidates in every seat and has a realistic prospect of forming government, more of that cap is at that party's disposal. That is a fair system. Ultimately, of course, expenditure is about a candidate putting their platform forward and giving people a genuine democratic choice, which is what that particular legislation did.
I note that I do not believe that money equals votes. A party still has to have substance. I will use the example of the Trumpet of Patriots. I think you would have had to try very hard in Western Australia to not have been campaigned at by Clive Palmer in the last election. There were billboards everywhere and adverts in The West Australian. We could not watch catch-up TV or YouTube without being harassed or bombarded by the Trumpet of Patriots. That party ended up securing about 1.85% of the national vote. It failed to win a single seat in the House of Representatives despite also sending over 17 million unsolicited campaign text messages to people. My view, very much, is that money does not buy votes. A party still has to have the substance and put its views to the public for assessment for them to ultimately determine whether they are confident to elect the party's candidate or candidates.
I think that WA Labor and the Labor government struck the right balance at the last election. There is more to do. We are moving in the right direction. How-to-vote cards have been spoken about at length. People are definitely moving more towards the QR code system after it made a comeback during COVID. It featured heavily in the last election. As was mentioned, it allowed people to take a screenshot of the how-to-vote card on their phone and take that to the polling booth. I think, over time, political parties will naturally produce fewer how-to-vote cards and pieces of paper because of the electronic nature of campaigning. Similarly, I think there will be fewer flyers and paraphernalia going into people's mailboxes over time given the rise of digital things for political advertising like catch-up TV, Facebook, Instagram and the like. I think we will naturally head in that direction.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Don't forget TikTok.
Hon Lauren Cayoun: And TikTok, of course. Thank you!
Ultimately, I agree with the intent of the motion, which is care for the environment and sensible reform, like the government did with bunting and spending caps that regulate spending without stifling democracy.
Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.
