ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 14 May 2009. Page 2830.)

Clause 39.

Mrs REDMOND: I am just trying to get myself back into the space where we were in our discussion of clause 39. We were talking about new section 112C, which is inserted in clause 39 of the bill. As I read it, the clause provides that, if in any matter announced or published or caused to be announced or published by a person on behalf of any association, league, organisation or other body, it is claimed or suggested that a candidate supports the policies of that association or organisation, or it is expressly or impliedly advocated or suggested that the candidate should get first preferences, then that person is guilty of an offence.

The issue I think I was exploring at the time we last met in relation to this bill was whether that is to apply to a church, for instance. I have known of churches in the past whose sermons might have indicated that a particular candidate was the preferred candidate of a particular church and encouraged members to vote for that candidate. They impliedly indicated—if not expressly indicated—that a particular candidate was the candidate to whom the first preference vote should be given because their policies accorded with the policies of the church.

My reading of the section is that that would then be an offence. That seems to me to be an untenable proposition because I would have thought, apart from anything else, that it was the freedom of speech of any individual to get up and spruik for whoever they want. This seems to say that if you are doing it as an individual it is all right but that, as soon as you start to do it as an organisation, it is no longer all right. I have some difficulty with that, and I think we were at the point of exploring that particular issue when we last met.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do refer the committee to the terms of the bill and that is that, on my reading of it, the church would be free to say that it supports a particular candidate but what it would not be free to do is, without the consent of the candidate, to say that the candidate supports the church and its policies or principles or mission—a slightly different thing.

Mrs REDMOND: I still need some clarification on the point because, whilst I understand that the wording of it is intending a particular outcome, it still seems to me to say that, if an organisation claims or suggests—and, I take it, even impliedly proposes—that a candidate in an election supports the policies or activities of the association, then that person who has made that announcement, or that organisation on whose behalf that announcement is made, is guilty of an offence.

I do not understand how the Attorney argues that that conclusion is not the inevitable conclusion of subsection (1)(a), because it is an (a) or (b) situation. Subsection (1)(a) provides that if, in any matter announced or published by a person on behalf of an organisation, it is claimed or suggested that a candidate in an election is associated with, or supports the policy or activities of, that association, the person is guilty of an offence, and there is a penalty.

Then you have to go on to subsection (2) which then provides that that does not apply if you can prove that the person gave you the authority to say it but, in the absence of an express authority from the person, it means that the church at large, or the Pope, for instance, could not make an announcement saying, 'We think you should support this particular group.' I do not understand what problem the legislation is trying to overcome and why my interpretation of this section is not what is going to happen.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I stand by what I said earlier. The mischief at which this is directed is an organisation claiming, without the candidate's consent, that a candidate supports the organisation's aims and work. It is not prohibiting an organisation endorsing a candidate. It does not stop a person on behalf of an organisation saying, 'Our organisation supports this candidate.' It is directed at a different mischief.

I can think of two examples to illustrate it to the member for Heysen. One is that, at the next state election, the Adelaide Institute (Dr Fredrick Toben's institute) could say, 'We are very pleased with the parliamentary Liberal Party's policies towards Jews and, in particular, we are pleased with the member for Heysen's stand regarding the Holocaust'. I think the member for Heysen will see that—

Mrs Redmond: I would be justly outraged.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: She would be justly outraged were that to occur, so that is the mischief at which this clause is directed. Another example is that, at the next election, let us say the Church of Scientology says, 'We are very pleased with the member for Croydon and his work in the state parliament. He has shown over his eight years as Attorney-General that his ideas are entirely compatible with Scientology, and we want him to continue to work supporting our organisation.' I do not think the Church of Scientology should be able to issue such a statement without my consent; it is at that mischief the clause is directed.

Mrs REDMOND: I am sorry to labour this point. I take what the Attorney's explanation encompasses. Does the clause (or any other clause) address the counter of that? The counter of that would be where an organisation does exactly the opposite and purports to make a statement not endorsing but castigating a candidate and saying, 'The member for Heysen's views are so far distant from the members of our organisation and what we stand for that we do not want anyone to vote for her.' This appears to be written to address one side of the proposition but not the other.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer to the member for Heysen's question is that that castigation is not caught by this provision or by the Electoral Act unless it is misleading—a completely different part of the act.

Mrs REDMOND: New subsection (3) then goes on to say that, where any matter is produced that would be an offence under subsection (1), every person is guilty of an offence if they are part of the organisation. Then I thought there was a bit that said that this was separate to the offence of being misleading.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Different from.

Mrs REDMOND: Different from—sorry; the Attorney is absolutely correct in correcting my grammar, as it is at home by my children—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Where did they learn that?

Mrs REDMOND: From their mother. I want to be clear about this. The new section will create a proposition whereby if one makes a statement, whether it be favourable or unfavourable to a candidate but which is misleading, that is already dealt with under the act and that has not changed. However, if one makes a statement that endorses a candidate in the sense that 'this candidate supports our views' then, in the absence of specific authority from the candidate to make that statement, that is an offence. However, it is not an offence to say that this candidate's views are absolutely the opposite of our organisation's. Am I understanding it correctly?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the member for Heysen summarises it correctly. I just add this rider: to be caught by the prohibition on misleading advertisements, it must be an electoral advertisement within the definition of electoral advertisement in the act.

Clause passed.

Clause 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney just touched on this issue of electoral advertisements. I note that the proposition in clause 41 amends 'Heading to electoral advertisements'. Section 113 deals with misleading advertising—and the previous clause just upped the penalties for the breach of that. Then 'Heading to electoral advertisements' is dealt with in section 114. It currently provides 'electoral matter is to be inserted in a newspaper', and it goes on to provide that you have to put the word 'advertisement' on it. That will now be substituted and, instead of 'newspaper', it will have the word 'journal'. That broadens it so that a trade journal, for instance, or something like that—the Law Society Bulletin, plumbers journal, all the different journals that, no doubt, all of us get across our desks every month—is now incorporated. Given the electronic age, does the bill address in any way the proposition of electoral advertising via the internet, Twitter, Facebook or any of the other things, because I have a suspicion that all of this will become irrelevant?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 24, lines 26-36—Delete clause 41 and substitute:

41—Substitution of section 114

Section 114—delete the section and substitute:

114—Heading to electoral advertisements

(1) This section applies to the publication of electoral matter in written form in—

(a) a journal; or

(b) an electronic publication on the Internet,

if payment or other consideration has been, or is to be, given for publication of the matter (whether the journal or electronic publication is published for sale or for distribution without charge).

(2) If this section applies to the publication of electoral matter, the publisher of the matter must cause the word 'advertisement' to be included as a headline to each article or paragraph containing the electoral matter—

(a) in the case of matter published in a journal—in letters not smaller than 10 point or long primer; or

(b) in the case of matter published in an electronic publication—in letters of a size that will be readily legible.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a natural person—$1,250.

(b) if the offender is a body corporate—$5,000.

(3) In this section—

journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical.

This amendment seeks to achieve what the member for Heysen just canvassed.

Mr PISONI: Can the Attorney clarify whether the requirement to use the word 'advertisement' is only a requirement after the writs are written or whether it is a requirement for all advertisements; and whether that requirement also extends to advertisements that are paid for from global expenses which are not allowed to be political?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Section 114 applies all the time. Section 116 applies only during the election period. The answer is that if material published is an electoral matter—that is, it could influence the outcome of an election—then it should have the heading 'Advertisement'.

Mrs REDMOND: Does that mean that every time any member publishes, for instance, the standard photo that goes into local newspapers with 'Working for you in Croydon' (or whatever little sign) and there is a photo of a person and it states, 'member for Croydon' or 'member for Waite' (or wherever it is), it is captured by this and needs to bear the word 'advertisement'? I am sure that none of us is putting the word 'advertisement' on it at this stage?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the publication of our mere dials in the local newspaper would not be calculated to affect the outcome of an election and, therefore, would not require an advertisement. If there was an imperative vote for the member for Heysen, then, yes, it appears that it requires the heading 'Advertisement'. I am also sure that the member for Heysen is right in saying that none of us does it.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: This clause is headed 'Electorate advertisements': what provisions in this clause guarantee that the material which is circulated about other candidates is fair, true and accurate? I want to bring to the attention of this committee—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A course of conduct.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —a scurrilous document—because it is untrue—which was circulated about me.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Is this 'Goodbye, Mr Invisible'?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The member responsible for this has never had the courage to come forward. The parliamentary library was misused. I have a document in front of me which states:

Mr Gunn has racked up over $1.3 million in superannuation. Now he wants to have another turn.

It has here that it is a bogus cheque. It is a scurrilous document because the calculations are wrong and mischievous, and the parliamentary library was misused, and to this day those responsible in the library and elsewhere have not had the courage to provide me with the basis of that calculation. This document, which is a green paper, states:

PSA [Parliament of South Australia] pay the Hon. Graham Gunn MP or the bearer $1,337,971.

It is dated 9 February 2002, and shows 'Signature: Taxpayer'. Then it has 'Stamp duty paid: The patient taxpayer'. It was misleading and untrue, and the member of parliament who went to the library has never had the courage to come forward and say it was him. This is the sort of material that was circulated about me, and it was done on the basis that it was accurate because it reads: 'Source: Parliamentary Library of South Australia'. People thought that because of that it was accurate. Of course, it was nowhere near accurate.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, what was the truth? Tell us the truthful figure.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, I do not have to. What I can say to the honourable member, as he knows and he did not say in his document, is that he and I are in a compulsory parliamentary superannuation scheme. It is a compulsory scheme, and we are required to pay 11.25 per cent of our salary. I do not have any problem with that whatsoever but, when someone sets out to try to impute that I am in receipt of improper payments or that I am scurrilous and untruthful, or that I have been receiving a benefit or have the potential to receive a benefit to which I am not entitled, I do not think it does democracy any good.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What is the commutation figure?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: If the honourable member wants to ask me privately I may even tell him, but I am not going to put it on the public record. It is nothing more than I am entitled to. I am one of those people—

An honourable member: They are rules we all agreed to.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes. Let me ask the Attorney-General: is he the member who went to the library and sought the information? The parliamentary library would not tell me and, when I rang the then librarian and said, 'This is a scurrilous document and I want a copy of your calculations', he refused to give it to me. I said to him, 'I'll see you in hell. Your day is coming.' So I rang the then speaker and the speaker demanded the information, and it was refused.

This is the sort of scurrilous document that has been circulated, and I want to know whether these provisions will outlaw this practice. It was designed to show me in bad faith. It was not successful. The only fortunate thing was that people saw through it, and that it was a scurrilous, underhanded and nasty trick. They got up to other nasty tricks. I do not mind people saying anything about me which is true—anything about what I may or may not have done in my time as a member of parliament—as long as it is truthful and accurate. I never went down the track of personally vilifying people. I have never done it in the electorate.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The Liberal head office did it on your behalf.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, it did not. If you want to talk about those sorts of things, you spent taxpayers' money and established an office and created a position with a bloke on full pay who made out he was a member of parliament.

Mr Pisoni: Where is he now?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Don Farrell funded him the first time, and he did his dough. Then the government funded him and they did their dough, so he has now gone to Victoria. Best of luck to him.

I think it is important that this house is aware that these sorts of practices are taking place. Can the Attorney give us an assurance that the Electoral Commissioner will step in and act when material that is blatantly untrue, misleading and scurrilous is circulated under the authorisation of the state secretary of the Labor Party of South Australia? It was not some ill-informed person. This was a deliberately contrived scheme. They went to the library, they concocted a story, then circulated it to try to make out this was some money-hungry, grasping person when, in the town of Port Augusta there was an ex-minister living in receipt of parliamentary superannuation. Prior to that, an ex-speaker lived in the town who was in receipt of parliamentary superannuation. There is nothing wrong with it. I am all in favour of it. However, to then concoct a story certainly does not do the electoral process any good.

I have never minded a fair, tough or rugged political campaign. I have always enjoyed it, because I reckon I could hold my own. However, I do not expect to have my personal reputation called into question or to hear that I am dishonest or that I have engaged in improper activity. I have been a very careful person in my business and other arrangements.

I have waited a long time for the opportunity to deal with this matter, because I regard it as a blight on the political scene. Those who have been engaged in it ought to be ashamed of themselves. Other documents were circulated on that occasion dealing with all sorts of other activities, which, to put it mildly, were juvenile. They were blaming me for all sorts of things.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Some began in London with a Harrods shopping bag.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I have never bought anything at Harrods, for the benefit of the honourable member, and I have never had a Harrods shopping bag. That is another untruth. If the honourable member knew anything about me, he would know that I am a fairly frugal person; I am not one to go out and engage in extravagances.

However, I value my reputation and, contrary to what he or others have implied, I have had the privilege to be sent to this place 12 successive times, and I am on the record as being the second-longest serving member in this chamber. If I wanted to, I could have come back again. However, I have determined that it is in the interests of my party to bring younger people in here, and I will go back and enjoy the latter stage of my life as a farmer, which is an honourable profession, and do one or two other things.

I want to put this on the record. I say to those people in the parliamentary library: have the courage to own up to who asked them to prepare this document. I ask the Attorney whether it was him or to reveal which member of the Labor Party was the architect or instigated this sort of scurrilous and misleading material?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer is no, I did not. My recollection is that I did not ask the parliamentary library to make that calculation. The member for Stuart, I think, protests too much on the merits of that electoral advertisement. I imagine it could have been the subject of a complaint to the State Electoral Office at the time. I invite the member for Stuart to share with the house whether he made a complaint about it at the time. The gravamen of the member for Stuart's complaint seems to be that the Labor Party advertisement said that he was entitled to a commutation figure of—what was it, $1.3 million—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Yes, million.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —when he was entitled to a commutation payment slightly less—

An honourable member: Far less.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, far less. The matter could have been resolved, I would have thought, by the member for Stuart making that point publicly: that he was not entitled to $1.3 million, that he was entitled to less, and to say what that figure was. However, I imagine he took the view that the whole topic should have been private, that the Labor Party should not have been canvassing what he thinks are private matters and that, therefore, he was not going to respond to correct the record. That is a matter for him.

The implication of the member for Stuart's contribution is that the Australian Labor Party habitually does these dreadful, scurrilous things and that the Liberal Party of Australia does not. However, anyone who follows Australian politics knows that the Liberal Party is up there with the Labor Party in—

Mr Venning: Name one: give me one instance.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The most famous and most recent one was the people connected to Jackie Kelly letterboxing a leaflet in her electorate on the eve of the federal election saying that Islamic Jihad (or whoever it was) looks forward to the election of a Labor government. I hope that answers the member for Schubert's question. I think he already regrets asking the question.

The answer to the question from the member for Stuart is: no; I do not think I had anything to do with calculating his commutation figure. He may recall that in February 2002 I was engaged in a life or death struggle in the state district of Enfield. Had I not succeeded in what I was doing, Rob Kerin would have continued as premier, with the support of the Independent candidate in that seat, but, alas for the parliamentary Liberal Party, Mr Ralph Desmond Clarke was not elected; in fact, he came third—he did not even come second after being the sitting member for eight years.

My last point is that that publication from the Australian Labor Party in the state district of Stuart almost certainly would have been an electoral advertisement, and the member for Stuart had his remedy.

Mrs REDMOND: Further to the Attorney's response to the member for Stuart, it would be readily conceded that it was an electoral advertisement, and I suspect that it was probably misleading and certainly was intended to damage. My question then is: if the member for Stuart had made a complaint to the Electoral Commissioner, what powers does the Electoral Commissioner then have to make relevant inquiries and to force full disclosure from those people from whom she might make those relevant inquiries, such as the parliamentary library in the case of the member for Stuart?

I note the provisions under the sections dealing with misleading advertising in fact require that the Electoral Commissioner, if she takes proceedings to the Supreme Court, must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt, and that will be almost impossible unless the Electoral Commissioner is empowered not only to seek the evidence but also to compel its disclosure.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There are two points I want to make about the contribution of the member for Heysen just then. The first is that this is a criminal offence provision and she appears to be advocating an override of the presumption against self-incrimination. She is saying that a statutory office holder in the midst of an election campaign should force a person who has published an electoral advertisement to incriminate themselves by supplying certain material. That is an odd suggestion coming from the member for Heysen in the light of her previous stand on these matters.

The second point is that I doubt whether any Electoral Commissioner, whomever that may be from time to time, would ever want the kind of authority canvassed by the member for Heysen because, frankly, during the course of an election campaign the Electoral Commissioner and her office are driven to distraction by the number of complaints candidates make about each other, the kind of trivia that seems important to candidates during those three or four weeks.

Mrs Redmond: Missing corflutes.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Missing corflutes—the member for Heysen anticipates correctly the point I was going on to make. I really do not think that the Electoral Commissioner should be diverted from her task into royal commission-type inquiries into the provenance of election material and the substratum of fact behind the material. After the election, if the candidate wishes to sue for defamation or canvass the possibility of a prosecution of the other candidate for publishing this material, well, that will be determined in the tranquillity of the post-election period, as I think it should be.

Mrs REDMOND: Just in response to the Attorney and by way of a further question, first, he did, at the very end, get away from the fact that it is not during the course of the election. I anticipate that the circumstances outlined by the member for Stuart would probably, if pursued by him at all, have been pursued post the election. I accept the argument that it is far too busy during an election period, but my understanding of the way the system works is that, if in those sorts of circumstances the member made a complaint after the election and the Electoral Commissioner decided there was sufficient ground to take the matter to the court, there could be a prosecution. Indeed, there is power for the court to find that an advertisement was so misleading as to have interfered with the electoral process and there would have to be a new election.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It has happened, as in Norwood.

Mrs REDMOND: Exactly. I do not see that that is a problem. The first part of the Attorney's response, where he indicated that I was suggesting that there be an overriding of the presumption against self-incrimination, is not my point at all. For instance, say it was authorised by the Australian Labor Party to put out a particular thing—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Well, whoever. Say it was Michael Brown, Australian Labor Party, at whatever address. That is the misleading advertisement the Electoral Commissioner is going after. My question was: to what extent does the Electoral Commissioner have the power to go to, for instance, the parliamentary library, which is cited as the source of the information, and require not the person who might be self-incriminating but the parliamentary library, which may have unwittingly participated in the process. Maybe the parliamentary library is not the best example, because we may have separate protections within this building from other places.

Say they went to the office of the bureau of statistics, or something like that: to what extent can the Electoral Commissioner go to that third party provider of information who is cited as the source and not only request information as to whether they supplied the information but also compel that third party source to tell the Electoral Commissioner whether they did supply it, who did it, on what basis and all the other details that might be relevant to preparing a case?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, the Electoral Commissioner does not have the kind of power to compel or the authority that the member for Heysen would like. I rather doubt that the Electoral Commissioner wants it, and I do not think it would be a sensible decision of the house to give the Electoral Commissioner that kind of authority. In her deliberations, I imagine the refusal of the person who authorised the material to supply certain information would weigh on decisions she has to take under the act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does that not then mean that the Attorney's previous answer that the member for Stuart had a remedy means that he has no remedy during the election process at all because the Electoral Commissioner, by the Attorney's own admission, has no power to source the accuracy of the information? The only remedy available to the member for Stuart in those circumstances is post election, and by then it may well be too late. Taking that one step further, if the remedy is post election I assume we are talking either defamation, which would be a private matter—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Or prosecution of the publisher.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Which, in that circumstance, is the ALP, one assumes, or Mr Brown.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: In the member for Stuart's circumstance.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Right, or the Court of Disputed Returns.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes; or the Court of Disputed Returns. A pretty good panoply of remedies, I would have thought.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But if the ALP put out a document saying that, according to the parliamentary library the member for Stuart's superannuation entitlement was X, one would assume that, as long as the parliamentary library gave a document to the ALP saying that, there is no inaccuracy in the leaflet.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, there is.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If they have relied on a legitimate source from the parliamentary library, where is the inaccuracy? I am not in any way, shape or form trying to defend the Labor Party here; I am trying to establish what will be the law. If someone provides you with a document that is inaccurate and you do not know it is inaccurate, and you then quote it in an election leaflet, does that fall foul of being an inaccurate advertisement or electoral material and, therefore, subject to dispute?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If it has altered the course of the campaign and resulted in the member for Stuart's losing the seat—as it might, given that his seat in the past three elections has been decided by very few votes.

Mrs Redmond: How many times has he been elected?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Many. On this side of the chamber we have great respect for the member for Stuart. He has taken everything we have thrown at him and prevailed, and I congratulate him. However, had he lost by a handful of votes at the 2002 election he might have approached the Court of Disputed Returns saying that the material circulated was false and inaccurate to a material extent, that it had affected the outcome, and that he wished to have a fresh election. I would have thought that that was his remedy.

If we switch to the defamation remedy, I do not think the publisher of that advertisement could rely for his or her defence on the parliamentary library being the source. It is not fair to say that the statement is true that the parliamentary library says that the member for Stuart's commutation entitlement is, say, $1.3 million if, in fact, it is not $1.3 million. That is untrue and tends to damage the member for Stuart in the course of an election campaign. As a personal opinion, I do not think—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: He's still got time to take action on it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, he did not lose.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; he has run out of time. At that time, before I reformed the defamation act, there was a six year limit, so that expired last year. It is no good to say that it was reasonable publication because the information came from the parliamentary library. Mind you, another mind may reach a different conclusion to me on that situation. All I am saying is that the member for Stuart does have remedies and, as I understand it, he chose not to avail himself of those remedies. However, whenever the opportunity arises in deliberations in this place, he rises to remind us of the monstrous injustice to which he was subjected.

Frankly, my response is rather like Shakespeare's Henry V:that we on this side in our flowing cups freshly remember the injustices done to the member for Stuart in the course of the vigorous campaigns for that state district in which he prevailed.

Mr PISONI: Getting back to section 114, I want to clarify that I heard the Attorney correctly, that the requirement for 'advertisement' is required in that section at any time. If it is calculated, I suppose the question is: who calculates that? How is the requirement determined, for example, if an individual who has no affiliation whatsoever with a political party or any political ambitions decides to run an advertisement; if a trade union decides to run an advertisement; if a business organisation decides to run an advertisement (outside of an election period; the writs are not called); or if the government decides to run an advertisement? Remember that it was this Premier in opposition who said (and I am paraphrasing here) that whenever you see a politician's face on a government ad it is a political advertisement. My question is: who determines whether the tag 'advertisement' is required, and is it required for government political advertising?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It ends up as a question of fact for the court. The Electoral Commissioner will decide whether the advertisement merits prosecution. She would then retain the services of the Crown Solicitor's Office for that prosecution. The Crown Solicitor's Office would adjudicate the matter to determine whether or not it should be prosecuted, and then it would be up to the court.

As I said at the very outset of this committee deliberation, we would live in a totalitarian society if every provision on our statute book were enforced to the nth degree. We know that prosecution for breach of this provision would be reserved only for the very worst cases where mischief is done, where damage is done. Could the government be prosecuted for neglecting to place the word 'advertisement' above its ads, if those ads were calculated to affect the election result? Well, probably, but you would have to show some public interest in the prosecution. The public interest does not equate to the member for Unley being gleeful.

Mr PISONI: I think it is fair and reasonable for any of us, when we ask a question, to at least get from the minister the intention of the legislation. The legislation is coming here in his name, so he should at least explain to this house whether or not it is the intention that government political advertising requires the term 'advertisement'. I do not think it is good enough for the Attorney to stand there and say that it is up to the commissioner. He drafted the legislation and he is responsible for it. He has intentions for the outcome of this legislation. He should be able to answer the question as to whether it is the intention of this legislation for paid government advertising that is deemed to be political advertising to be required to have the heading 'advertisement' when it is in a journal.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If the facts come within the ambit of the provision and if there is a public interest in prosecuting, let the cards fall where they may.

Mrs REDMOND: We are technically, I think—since you were not here earlier, Madam Chair—dealing with the Attorney's proposed amendment to section 114, and I want to ask a specific question about that. That was moved shortly after I raised this issue of the extension of journals, not just newspapers—I think it is defined as 'newspaper, magazine or other periodical'—and then the Attorney's new provision that he is moving as an amendment is to include 'an electronic publication on the internet'.

In both the existing legislation and the Attorney's proposed amendment it is still necessary that there be payment or other consideration given for publication. That seems to me to be limiting—and I know little about the internet but my understanding is that one might have blogs, Twitter, Facebook and a whole lot of other things, as opposed to the sort of paid spam advertisements.

I think the Attorney's amendment captures the sort of spam advertisement going out to all and sundry but it does not appear to capture a whole lot of areas that are currently in vogue, such as Twitter, Facebook and personal blogs, as well as websites. Is there to be any control on any of that other electronic media that is not paid, or will we all be free to send out Twitter and whatever to our heart's content, as long as we are paying for it, and we do not have to put it as an advertisement?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer to the member for Heysen's question, as I took her question, is that if it is outside the election period and the material is not a paid for advertisement then section 114 does not apply. Apropos of the election period, though, I have amendments coming to section 116 which require, in the blogosphere, during the election campaign, attribution. You want to know that a real person of a real address is publishing the material and takes responsibility for it. But that is in the campaign period and that is an amendment to come.

Mr PISONI: You said, 'paid for advertisement'. I am wondering whether your amendment extends to multiple emailing. It could be done by volunteers; it could be a Labor Party message at election time that is sent out after a collection of emails. It could be designed to look like an email from the Premier or from the leader of a political party and it can go out to literally every resident of the state who has an email address. Under this section, and this amendment, would that be classified as an advertisement that would require the word 'advertisement' being used which you are hoping to cover in your amendment?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The key words are 'payment' or 'other consideration', and I think those words are plain.

Mrs REDMOND: Just following on again from that, I am just trying to get some clarity. Is it then the case that, if we go back to the previous federal election, for instance, when the previous prime minister, John Winston Howard, sent out SMS messages and—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: They were phone messages.

Mrs REDMOND: They were phone messages, whatever—they were paid for in the sense that there is a cost to sending out a message. Is that going to be captured? I know we are dealing with state law here and that that was a federal election, but would that activity be captured as an advertisement and would it be necessary to preface such a message-sending activity with the word 'advertisement'?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 25, lines 2 to 5 [clause 42(2), inserted subsection (2a)]—Delete inserted subsection (2a) and substitute:

(2a) A person must not exhibit an electoral advertisement by affixing it to a structure, fixture or vegetation that is situated on a road or road related area.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

Note—

This subsection only applies if the structure, fixture or vegetation is situated on land that is a road or road related area. It would not apply, for example, to material affixed to a fence, or to the wall of a building, that is situated on private land, even if the electoral advertisement is visible from a road or road related area.

This amendment is the first in a series of amendments—the others being government amendments 7, 11 and 12—and should be treated as the test amendment. Clause 42 of the bill amends section 115 of the Electoral Act to add a new subsection (2a) that prohibits the exhibition of an electoral advertisement on a public road, including any structure, fixture or vegetation on a public road, or in any public place. The main target of this amendment is the posting of corflute posters on telegraph and light poles, and other structures situated on or beside public roads.

Proposed subsection (2a) applies more broadly than that. The government intended to narrow the scope of the prohibition by creating appropriate exceptions by regulation. Proposed subsection 4 provides the Governor with this authority. Having consulted on this provision, the government has reconsidered its approach. The amendment deletes proposed subsection (2a) and replaces it with a new provision that prohibits a person exhibiting an electoral advertisement, but only if the person affixes it to a structure, fixture or vegetation that is situated on a road or road related area. The provision no longer prohibits electoral advertising in public places per se.

A note is inserted into section 115 to make clear that subsection (2a) only applies if the structure, fixture or vegetation is situated on land that is a road or a road related area and that it would not apply, for example, to material affixed to a fence or to the wall of a building that is situated on private land, even if the electoral advertisement is visible from a road. Likewise, new subsection (2a) will not prohibit the exhibition of an electoral advertisement from a motor vehicle.

The government is moving to ban the posting of corflutes because they are a blight on the environment. They can create a road safety hazard. Strictly, from a campaigning point of view, in my opinion, they are unnecessary.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Not quite. The public does not like them; motorists do not like them; local councils do not like them; environmental groups do not like them. They preoccupy our candidates unnecessarily. I would be confident in saying that a great many members of the house don't like them, all for good reasons.

Mr Pisoni: I don't like your posters.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: You don't like my posters?

Mr Pisoni: Even the ones without the 'ALP' on them. How big was it? About that big.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; in 1993 I just didn't have 'Labor' on them.

Mr Pisoni: A real soldier of the party, you are!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We use them because we always have. Most important of all, we use them because our opponents do. No-one is going to stop using them until the law says that they cannot.

Mrs REDMOND: First of all, I thank the Attorney for at least improving the previous proposal by means of the current proposed amendment to make it clear in the legislation itself that it will not affect signs on cars.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Corflute Isobel!

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney calls me 'Corflute Isobel', and I say once again that I hate having photos of myself taken. Indeed, photos of myself have recently been the subject of comment in my local newspaper because it was decided that my photo, which was taken (I think) when I was a candidate in about 2001, did not look old and wrinkly enough for the shadow minister for ageing, and I had—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You had to update it.

Mrs REDMOND: —to update it, which I now have. I was in the process of doing it, in fact, when the issue arose. I hate having photos of myself taken and I hate, in particular, election time, when I have to drive to work and try not to look up because I hate seeing great big pictures of myself on every Stobie pole.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: But you look sweet!

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, member for Stuart. However, the point I want to make is that for me, personally, getting rid of corflutes would be an advantage, I think, not only because I do not like having to look at them myself—that is, pictures of me.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Because you are known and your opponent is not.

Mrs REDMOND: Because I am known and my opponent is not, as the Attorney correctly calls across the chamber. What I am proposing, although personally detrimental to me, I think, is something that I think is actually precious as part of our system, and that is the right of candidates to get their name and their image out there.

Great care must be taken about these photos because I know how many times I have been with people and they look at the photo that is up on the fence or whatever it is and say, 'Oh, I wouldn't vote for him; he looks like a used-car salesman,' or 'I wouldn't vote for her; she looks like a bitch!' People actually make their decision about who to vote for according to whether they like the look of the photo, and there have been studies done that actually show that it does have a big impact.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A beard can lose a male candidate up to 5 per cent of the vote.

Mr Pisoni: It's worse for a woman!

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney correctly points out that there have been studies showing that a beard is generally detrimental to male members of parliament. If you look around our state legislatures and our federal legislatures, there are very few guys with beards—and I suggest that the member for Unley is probably right that it would be even worse for a woman.

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: That's right. I would be prepared to countenance a suggestion, for instance, that there be even tighter limits than at the moment, where the corflutes cannot go up until the writs are issued and they have to come down within a very short time afterwards, and—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And they do.

Mrs REDMOND: And they do—people are very conscientious. In my case, we absolutely drill our people about where they are and are not allowed to put them, about the height at which they can be put and about how they are not allowed to tamper with anyone else's corflutes—all those sorts of things.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How many do you put up?

Mrs REDMOND: I have lost count of how many corflutes I have put up. However, the point is that, even if it were for a more restricted period, it is still an important part of the democratic process, in my view, to allow candidates—especially those who are seeking office for the first time—to be able to get their name and face out there in the community that they are seeking to represent.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What's wrong with doorknocking?

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney asks what is wrong with doorknocking. I say there is nothing wrong with doorknocking; in fact, I enjoy the process. Indeed, I have only ever had one person who was very angry and agitated. However, the Attorney would also appreciate that his electorate of Croydon may be slightly easier to doorknock than some of the 1,000 square kilometres that I represent.

Some of the places that I have doorknocked in the Peachey Belt, for instance, where you could literally step three steps from door to door, are somewhat easier to doorknock in that physical way than where I have to walk up a drive for 500 metres to get to the house and then back down the drive and half a kilometre to the next house, but the beauty of the area I represent makes that all worth while, and I enjoy doorknocking.

The point I want to make is that, notwithstanding what the Attorney says about people hating them, I do not think they hate them that much. They hate them if they are left there. They recognise that it is an election, and I think it is a rather fun part of our democratic process that we have this vibrant display of all these people wanting to seek election. They are up for a relatively short time and, as I said, I would be quite prepared to look at the option of tightening the time.

Councils are quite able to manage the issue of where they should be put, and to say that you are going to allow them only on private property I think just creates an even more difficult situation for the average candidate and, again, would give sitting members a distinct advantage. It would be an advantage for me personally to agree with your proposal, but it seems to me that what we should be about here, in dealing with the Electoral Act, is setting up a system which is as fair as possible.

For the time being at least it is my view that people still expect to see corflutes to know who is about and who is standing for election. Indeed, they complain if they do not think you have your poster out there and enough of them up in a particular area. So, I think it is a retrograde step, notwithstanding the improvement of allowing the signs on the cars, but I think the overall impact of the amendment to section 115 is one which would be adverse to the democratic process in this state.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Surely 'harm the democratic process' would be better.

Mrs REDMOND: No; 'adverse', I think.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I do not like corflutes personally. I think they are an unnecessary part of the democratic process. I do not particularly like them because I think they pollute the community. On one occasion, it was to my advantage when the Labor Party stuck them on gum trees through Horrocks Pass and people took strong umbrage at it.

At one election, they left the corflute outside my office at Port Augusta for 12 months, and it was only because I was a very tolerant and reasonable person that I waited until after the 12 months and then contacted the council and said, 'Listen. I think this nonsense has gone on long enough'. They wanted me to react early, and I knew that was the trick, so we did not play the game until after 12 months. One council in my constituency—the District Council of Mount Remarkable—banned corflutes. I did not have a problem with that. We complied, but my opponents did not. The difficulty we had was to get the council to say, 'Hang on—

Mrs Redmond: You have to enforce it.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —enforce it—because it is no good having a by-law if you are not going to enforce it. We had some hassle there, because I believe that I should comply with the laws. As I said, we did not want to upset my constituents at Mount Remarkable—good supporters that they were—so I took the responsible position. However, at the end of the day, these things are stuck up on Stobie poles. Fortunately, my photo on these things will not go up again because people have been known to write nasty things on them and deface them. I think the—

Mrs Redmond: Decorate them.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, I think the member—

Mrs Redmond: The member for Davenport has one.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The member for Davenport has two special ones which he has had framed, because the way in which they rearranged them was quite unique. At the end of the day, I do not personally care if you ban the lot of them. It does not worry me a bit, because they are an expensive thing to put up. They get vandalised and, if it rains, they get damaged, so you have to pull them down and put them up again. Of course, I have always had the view that, when it comes 5 o'clock on election day, you should start taking them down. It is something with which the candidates can occupy themselves. I have got quite good at it. I got one of those things they use on boats. You just give them a pull. It has a hook on it to pull them down with.

Stacked in my garage on the farm, I have three or four elections of various photographs as my features have changed. I am not sure what I should do with them. I do not know whether I should auction them. People might want to buy them for party funds. I have lots of them there. I think it is appropriate—

Mr Hanna: Donate them to the local Green group; they can recycle them.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: They're not normally my friends, the Green groups. I do not know why, but they are not normally my friends. I do not think there is anything wrong. I think they ought to be on the fence outside the polling booth, as you walk in, but, other than that, I do not think there is any political advantage or disadvantage in having them. Many people do object to them. My own personal view—I am very easy—is that I do not care whether another one is put up, except for the case at polling booths.

Mr VENNING: I have been in this place for many years now—19, in fact, in a few days—and I have a strong opinion about this matter. This part of the bill prohibits the use of posters. I do ask the question: why? They have always been there. In fact, it is practised all over the world. Although I believe some people would welcome their abolition, I think many people would miss them because it does flag that we are having an election. If we ban them from here, will we ban them from local government elections—and the same for federal elections—as well?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We don't have jurisdiction over that.

Mr VENNING: We don't, but I again ask why. Will we be the odd person out? I know people complain about them. As I said, I have been involved with this process for over 35 years, and my father before me. It was part of the ritual of getting out there early and putting up the posters in the right spots, our favourite spots. In the early days, we put them on trees, but not any more. When I write my book, there is many an amusing story I could tell about the putting up of posters—who springs you as you are doing it, the advice given and then later advice denied. It is all part of the ritual of elections. I think posters are a key part of the electoral process. As the new member for Frome will admit, he had a small poster but it was quite effective. People said, 'Who's this Brock bloke?' Well, there is his poster plastered all over the town.

Mr Hanna: Small but effective, did you say?

Mr VENNING: It was small but effective. The fact that he is here—

Mr Hanna: I thought you were talking about the candidate.

Mr VENNING: That too—both ways. I can recall returning from interstate and the election being called that day. I went straight to my office, but I was not fast enough because, within two hours of the election being called, the Democrats had a poster stuck right on the corner of my office post. It stayed there for the whole election campaign. The person concerned, Pam Reynolds, was the candidate and I had to look at her every day, which caused me a fair bit of grief, but they are the sorts of games we played. In that area, I won my majority. The Democrats were the threat. Labor was never a threat in my electorate. The Democrats were a threat to us and we certainly stole the march on them and we won that election very clearly.

It is now 19 years that I have had posters, and I have had people have a go at me about how old my posters are; and they say that it is about time I did a reprint. In my 19 years I have had four new issues of the poster—and they are expensive. As I said, I think they are very important for candidates who are not known. It is all very well for members like the Attorney-General and me because we have been around for a while.

What about new candidates who wish to have a go? How do they get known if they cannot do it via a press release, or whatever? It is all right for us. We have the trappings of office, so to speak. We are able to do things in order to create attention in the media. Without having to spend a lot of money, this is a good way in which to get posters out there to tell people who you are and to get some recognition for what you are doing and what your policies are. I think it is great that people can get recognition in this way.

It is important where these posters are placed. I am happy to concede that they should never be on trees. Even though they were on trees during the last election campaign, we never nailed them—like we did in the early days. We nailed them on trees and then pulled the nails out. We have what we call 'Liberal trees' all over the old electorate. We used to wire them to trees but now, of course, trees are out. Of course we have the various sizes—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Did you used to nail them?

Mr VENNING: In the early days we did, so they would not blow down; and then you could pull out the nails and there was not any rubbish. In hindsight, it was not a good move. I think it was rather barbaric, but that is what we did 30 years ago, before I was a member. They were made of masonite timber in those days and you had to use a nail—

Mr Pisoni: And paper, as well.

Mr VENNING: And paper. Posters were stuck on them, so you had to use a nail because they did not bend, unlike the modern corflute. We have come a long way in these matters. Trees are now sacred—and that is fair enough; we all agree with that.

I have always believed in pulling them down. There is nothing worse than an electoral poster after an election. I think it is very much to your detriment if you leave them up there. The word to my supporters is, 'If you see one up there on the Monday after the election, I want to know about it,' and it will be removed immediately; and it has been fairly well supported in that way.

I believe they can be recycled. I find school groups love them. Some have them because they like the political bit and they often use them for their own political business when they have an election for various school groups, including the student representative council. On several occasions I have conducted campaigns for them. We have had how-to-vote cards for the various candidates and they have used the reverse side of my poster to display their photograph.

There are a lot of uses for the posters, because corflute material is very useful. Rather than committing them to the bin, some painters use them as masking when they are painting. They are not totally useless. The schools love them. I cannot remember throwing any of my old posters in the bin. They have all been used.

It is part of the culture and I think we would miss it. I cannot understand why the Labor Party would support this issue. I believe in the two party system, particularly in this chamber. I do not understand why the Labor Party wants to do it. Both major parties are in a position of strength. Why would the Labor Party want to do this? Maybe it is democracy. Does the Attorney-General think anyone is excluded because of the cost of these posters? I do not believe they are. A small run can be done or they can be made out of cardboard; you do not have to use corflute. You can produce them yourself with a photocopier. I do not believe anyone is excluded on cost. I am amazed that the Labor Party would do this. I wonder who the strategist is who thought out this matter. I think it is wrong. I cannot support this part of the bill.

Mr PISONI: I am intrigued about subsection (2b). We have heard the Attorney-General tell us ad nauseam that people do not like them, they are not necessary and we will be doing everyone a favour getting rid of them. I am interested to know what will happen on 31 March 2014. Has the Attorney-General had some vision from above? Everyone has walked the road to Damascus and, suddenly, on 31 March they will decide that election posters are a damned good idea. That is when this clause expires.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who has been following the way the Rann government operates knows that they are really political opportunists, and good luck to them for that. When you are in government you have all the luxuries of incumbency, and one of those of course is that you do not need to win seats: you need to hold seats. If your candidates have been doing a good job they will, in fact, be known and consequently will not need election posters. So, I put it to the Attorney-General that either they are very concerned that their marginal seat candidates have not been working the electorates or, alternatively, they are so cocky that they feel they will be in government until the 2014 election, and when they are in opposition it probably would not be a bad idea for their candidates at election time to have election posters going up so they will be known.

Subsection (2b) would have to be the most cynical and blatant act that I have seen by a long shot in a long time—and that is saying something, living in a state run by Mike Rann and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General's explanation as to what will happen on 31 March 2014. I would like to know whether that is a date calculated on any form of science. My guess would be that, if it is science, it is political science. He knows that as the Y generation matures they will feel an appreciation for posters so, consequently, it will be his duty to ensure we do not rob them of the ability to have election posters at election time simply because those baby boomers in parliament in 2009 decided that for this period of time we will not have election posters.

My guess is that this is all about the Labor Party trying to disadvantage members of the public who want to make a run for parliament and represent their communities. They want their sitting members to have the advantage of incumbency that is exaggerated by the fact that it will be harder for non members of parliament to be heard and seen and for name recognition in an election campaign. We all know it is a very cheap and cost-effective way—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I think Vanessa Vartto's posters will look magnificent.

Mr PISONI: I would ask for this commitment from the Attorney-General now. We all know she is an SDA candidate and a good mate of the minister and Mr Koutsantonis. And he nods: she is a good mate of Mr Koutsantonis as well. I would say that, if this is kicked out of the legislation and posters are allowed up, if the campaign organisers of the Labor candidate in Unley say to me that they will not put up election posters if I do not, I will agree. I will not put up election posters if the Labor Party does not put them up. It is a commitment now in Hansard.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PISONI: Will you make that commitment as the campaign manager?

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PISONI: Will you make that commitment? No, because you know that—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PISONI: —election posters are an advantage—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PISONI: —for non-incumbents.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you will resume your seat when the chair calls for order. I was about to ask you politely to wind up quickly so that we can report progress, because time has elapsed for the completion of this debate. Do you have any more points to make regarding that matter?

Mr PISONI: I am actually waiting for an answer to a question.

The CHAIR: That will have to happen when the debate is resumed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]