ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2867.)

Clause 42.

The CHAIR: We were dealing with amendment No. 6 moved by the Attorney-General. We had had a number of questions and comments on it, and I think the member for Unley had asked a question to which the Attorney may now be able to reply.

Mr PISONI: My question was: first of all, what happens on 31 March 2014 that changes the need for this requirement or this amendment to disappear, so that electoral posters may once again be used for state elections? As I recall, prior to the lunch break I was saying that it appears to me as though the minister is expecting a conversion like that which happened on the road to Damascus (I know he likes those biblical terms) and that, all of a sudden, South Australians are no longer going to dislike—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, I didn't say that; you're just making it up as you go along.

Mr PISONI: The minister interjects, 'No, I didn't say that', but the way the act reads (and the explanations that the minister has given previously) is that this will all happen because it is what South Australians want: they do not want election posters displayed on public property, they do not like them, and we are putting this legislation in place because the people of South Australia want it. However, what some might consider to be a fairly strong argument unravels rapidly at midnight on 31 March 2014 at about the time the pumpkin comes out, which is usually about midnight.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I am talking about the story of Cinderella.

Mr Hanna: It came out earlier to get her to the ball.

Mr PISONI: Yes, it could very well have come out earlier to get her to the ball. I think what the member for Mitchell was inferring was that the Labor Party would have had its ball and be anticipating that it will be in office at least until then. It may be in opposition, of course, so it realises that it would need election posters for its unknown candidates for the election in 2018 and, consequently, it would want to use that option because it would not want any incumbent member to have an advantage against a challenger. Consequently, that is why we are seeing—

Mrs Redmond: My, it's a cynical view of the world!

Mr PISONI: The member for Heysen says it is cynical. I have been in politics for only a short time. However, I am a fast learner and I have learnt that this is a very cynical government.

An honourable member: Arrogant.

Mr PISONI: Yes, an arrogant government, and it will do anything to hold onto power. We have to remember that this is a party that is run by the SDA, one of the most ruthless unions in the Labor Party. Good luck to them, I say. To wield that sort of power and for everyone from the Left to have to bend over and do what they say—that is the way they run their party, and that is fine. That is the democratic process, I would suggest.

I return to my question, and I ask the minister to be quite specific. I would like to know why this requirement has a sunset clause and what is it that happens on 31 March that means it will no longer be required or is no longer relevant?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The government accepts that the ban on corflute posters on Stobie poles and the like will be controversial. People of goodwill will have different views about it. We acknowledge that it is a restriction on freedom of expression, but we propose to impose it for all the reasons that we have given. After a couple of elections with a ban on corflutes, it will be for another parliament (which, no doubt, will consist of 69 world experts on electoral matters) to decide whether the ban should continue. When I was at university, people like the member for Unley—people who had a liberal approach to economic matters—used to regard sunset clauses in legislation as a tremendous innovation—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —yes, that is probably true—that regulation, made by one generation, should not sit on the statute book and strangle another society or economy years down the track. We do not say that our view should prevail forever. So, we have put a sunset clause on it.

Mr Pisoni: What about the rest of the bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If you do not like it, member for Unley, take the sunset clause out.

Mr VENNING: I have a couple of questions to the Attorney-General in relation to the signs. I know that his second reading explanation does address these magnetised signs on cars. I presume then that he is going to allow them, but is there any restriction on the size of the magnetised sign? I presume there is. What about signs on campaign offices—not electorate offices but campaign offices? What about signs on vans and mobile offices, such as caravans that are moving around—

Mrs Redmond: Kombi vans.

Mr VENNING: Or Kombi vans. We see one regularly in the car park—not from this side of the chamber. Also, I understand that any sign is allowable on private property. It does not matter what size it is, or anything, if it is on private property I presume that this bill does not apply. However, does that also include property owned by semi-private people, such as some government enterprises? Would it also apply to them? What is private property in relation to these signs?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer to most of the member for Schubert's questions are in existing section 115 of the act.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Most of them do not change; that is right.

Mr PENGILLY: During the course of his questions, the member for Schubert referred to campaign offices as opposed to electorate offices. That means that there is absolutely nothing to stop a candidate having signs on his campaign office, correct?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, campaign offices are in the clear. They do not have restrictions from this act. I should add that they do have restrictions from planning. I can recall an officer at Charles Sturt council who did not particularly like me. He rang me to tell me that, if I put a corflute on my home, which was then 69 Wilpena Terrace, he could have it taken down under the Development Act, which, frankly—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That was the one with. It may be, member for Unley, that we still had the 1993 posters left over at that time. In fact, you are probably right, it probably was a 1993 poster without 'Labor' on it but with 'Michael Atkinson, your local MP'.

Mr Pisoni: Was it 'Michael' or 'Mick'?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, it might have read 'Mick'. The Electoral Act is not the only regulation of these signs. Having said that, during the campaign period I do not really see that a council could stop a householder displaying a standard Stobie pole corflute on the householder's home.

Mr PENGILLY: As a follow-up to that previous question, does the new act prohibit the use of signs being towed by an aeroplane, such as used at Football Park, which is private property?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, it does not apply. It applies only to signs affixed to poles on the road. That is what we think is the mischief. The Liberals say that it is not a mischief. That is the mischief the government is trying to address. I am happy for the Parliamentary Liberal Party to go on the record supporting corflute signs. I have a list of names and addresses of people who have complained to me about corflute signs in previous elections and now I can tell them what the position of the two parties is.

Mr PENGILLY: For the record, I wish to make it quite clear that I was referring to non-corflute signs. I was talking to signs behind aeroplanes and advertising signs on offices, not corflutes.

Mr VENNING: My last question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Local Government Act have jurisdiction over this act in relation to whether you can or cannot put up posters, and can councils ban the use of posters, because in my time in here one has?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The matter is most uncertain. There is a very long Crown Solicitor's Office opinion on this matter.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Possibly. One approach to this was to stop state MP/local government conflict at election time by passing a law that provided that corflutes were not to be regulated in any way by local government, and that was one way that some members of parliament would like us to go. The other way is to say: let us ban them from poles on the road, and that is what we are doing.

Mr PISONI: Picking up on the point that the Attorney made earlier regarding the list of people that he will be writing to who have complained about corflutes, are they within or outside of his electorate and will he be using his global allowance to do that, and is he aware that it is in breach of treasury and finance rules to write to people using the global allowance, as he admitted to doing in a previous committee regarding the remarks made by a senator in the national parliament? Perhaps I will ask another question, but the Attorney might like to clarify whether you do or do not breach the rules of global allowance in writing to people outside of your electorate.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Can I answer that?

Mr PISONI: I am not finished yet. I am still on my feet.

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Unley, I remind you that you have been indulged by the chair in being allowed to have this question. Please proceed precisely and concisely.

Mr PISONI: I would like to ask some questions of clarification on signage. I believe that in answer to the member for Finniss's question about an aeroplane towing a sign the Attorney said that that was allowed and that it could be larger than one square metre. I would have thought that if it could not be then it would be a bit pointless. So, that is something that I would like clarified.

I would also like clarified whether there is any restriction on the number of campaign offices that a candidate may have in a single electorate or elsewhere. I would also be very keen to have some clarification of the section of the act which provides 'the exhibition of the name of a candidate or the name of a political party (or both) at or near an office or room'. This is where it is exempt to this one square metre rule. What exactly does 'near' mean? Is it 50 metres, 15 metres, 100 metres?

I know from the experience that I have had on polling booths and elsewhere that tape measures are often brought out, and I am just wondering if, in a situation where there was a dispute about what 'near' meant, in addressing the amendments to the act through the amendment bill the Attorney might like to clarify what 'near' means when it comes to signage for campaign offices.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Unley thinks I am responsible to the committee to give him legal opinions on existing provisions of the act. This is the first time in seven years as Attorney-General that I have brought a bill to the house to amend the Electoral Act. I am simply not responsible to the committee or to the member for Unley—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Unley!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —for providing legal opinions as to the meaning of provisions of the 1985 act. I would have thought that the member for Unley knew more about the procedures of the chamber to prevent him from asking such silly questions.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Unley!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The second thing is that the provisions of the 1985 act seem to me to be reasonably plain. As to the hoarding in the air, because it is not attached to a building, it is not caught by the provision. That would be obvious to an intelligent reader looking at the act.

To answer the member for Unley's first question, he seems to have a fixation on what you can use your global allowance for. Has the member for Unley suffered some trauma at the hands of that section of the Public Service that handles the global allowance? People from all over South Australia—and from outside South Australia—write to me about matters connected with my portfolio, or even not connected with my portfolio. If I did not reply to them, the member for Unley would be on Today Tonight saying what a terrible politician I am and how I do not respond to them. Of course I send letters to people who do not live in my electorate who have written to me. Of course I send letters to people who live outside South Australia who have written to me. It is plain sense.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What a revelation!

The CHAIR: Order! This has become very disorderly and we need to focus on the bill rather than debate. The member for Heysen.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Chair, I just want to respond to the issue that the Attorney was canvassing before that last little bit, about the prevention of putting corflutes on Stobie poles. I accept some of what the Attorney has said. I accept that there can be some Stobie poles where placing the hoardings would be a nuisance or a potential traffic hazard, but that is the very reason why local councils developed by-laws. Indeed, the member—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: True. Now you have distracted me. The member for Torrens and I have recently been dealing with this issue of council by-laws on the Legislative Review Committee, and through the Local Government Association, to ensure that there is some sort of consistency so that we do not have the situation that the member for Stuart was talking about earlier, where a particular council within his electorate said that it was not having corflutes, and he was not allowed to put corflutes there. He obeyed the council and other people did not.

Surely, Attorney, that is the most reasonable approach, so that councils that know the local area can determine and say that under their by-laws you are allowed to put corflutes out. I would not even mind if they said, 'There's a limit of 200 corflutes for your electorate', or whatever, and tightened the time, as I said before, but it still seems to me unreasonable to say that it is not going to be allowable to put out corflutes for just the next two elections and then miraculously that is no longer going to be a proposition.

Is the Attorney prepared to move on this issue at all in terms of coming to something which would be acceptable to all parties, that is that, in consultation with the Local Government Association, we could come to some sort of agreement on possible limits on how many corflutes one could put out—for example, how close they could be to intersections and so on—but nevertheless allowing them to be put onto Stobie poles.

I accept that we do not want them on vegetation and I do not think that any councils would still allow them on vegetation under the bylaws. I do not think they create a problem on Stobie poles and other fences on ovals and things that are commonly used for notices around a district. I do not think that the community sees that as an eyesore any more than the announcement of the current show that is on at the theatre or when the next footy match is. All those signs are put up for a brief amount of time in designated spots, so why would that not be a more reasonable approach?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am not going to be the Attorney-General who set up the 'corflute police'; I am not going to give public servants or local government officials the job of going around an electorate and counting the number of corflutes, it would just be a further field for disputation and distraction from the real issue of the elections. I believe corflutes do not convey any useful information to electors in making up their mind as to who should govern or who should be their local MP. Accordingly, I have moved the bill that I have moved. If you do not like it, vote against it, and that is what the opposition is doing. In fact, the opposition is voting against the whole bill, so I really do not know why this committee stage is taking a record time.

Mr HANNA: We are dealing with the section of the legislation concerning electoral signs or posters. It is true that a lot of people are annoyed by them, but I also find that some people see a real value in them because they get some general sense of who is up for election in their area. Indeed, for many people it reminds them of exactly which electorate they are in when they see the names on the posters. So, they have some merit. On the other hand, I completely agree with the Attorney-General in his opening remarks when he talked about the visual pollution and the fact that people object to so many signs being around.

I have a different solution and, therefore, intend to move an amendment. Rather than simply banning them from roadways altogether—which is going to favour parties that have allies in business, for example, where signs can then be displayed in shop windows and so on—and rather than favour any particular party through that means, I think it is better to limit the number of signs per candidate in each electorate, and that is what my amendment does. It provides for a limit of 200 per candidate, and there is a device in there effectively to make it 200 per party per candidate. So, you cannot say there are 15 Labor candidates for the Legislative Council, therefore, we will have 15 times 200.

If there is one particular party, they can have 200 posters in that electorate and, if there is an Independent, they can have 200 posters as well. First of all, this will put everybody on a level playing field; secondly, it will mean that we are reducing that visual pollution problem; and, thirdly, I very much doubt that there is much marginal value in having more than 200 posters up anyway—and that applies in country or metropolitan electorates.

The other thing that I will say while I am on my feet is that one can only be cynical about the time frame in the legislation, drafted and introduced by the Attorney, to have a measure which greatly limits the display of election signs for two elections, which many would guess is the probable period of Labor's continuing tenure in office. To have that, and then for the status quo to be resumed, one can only be cynical about the motives.

I have said from the outset that I see this legislation as being designed to make it harder for Independents and smaller parties to gain traction and get into parliament. I think this particular section is a good example of that. So, I do feel strongly that election signs probably have got out of hand, but I also feel that the better answer to the visual pollution problem is to limit the number to each person.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Attorney, in relation to election posters at polling places on election day, will this amendment eliminate all of those as well? And what about the wrap-arounds that are being used nowadays?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the bill, if passed in its current form, will stop just about every kind of post or wrap-around at a polling booth, because they will all be on fences or poles. But there is provision in the bill for exemptions, and so if the opposition wanted to come to the government and exempt by regulation polling booths we would be open to that.

Mrs REDMOND: On that issue, I would have thought that some of what we would normally think of as public places are going to be owned by community groups, such as halls and things, that can often be owned not by the council but by a private school or a community group. I would have thought that you then have the problem that some polling places would be allowed to have the declaration and some not. Is that the case?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Our provisions are aimed at removing corflutes from the roads. We are not so concerned with—

Mrs Redmond: Bunting.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, not so concerned with bunting; and whether the signs go in the window of a community hall is a matter for the organisation that owns the hall.

Amendment carried.

Mr HANNA: For the reasons I have explained, I move the amendment in my name, as follows:

Page 25, lines 2 to 6 [clause 42(2), inserted subsections (2a) and (2b)]—Delete inserted subsections (2a) and (2b) and substitute:

(2a) A person must not, within any electoral district relating to a House of Assembly election, exhibit or cause to be exhibited more than 200 electoral advertisements on public roads (including structures, fixtures or vegetation on public roads) or in other public places.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(2b) For the purposes of subsection (2a), an electoral advertisement will—

(a) if it relates to a particular registered political party, or to a candidate who belongs to a particular registered political party—be taken to be exhibited by the registered officer of the party; and

(b) if it relates to a candidate who is not a member of a registered political party—be taken to be exhibited by the candidate.

(2c) A person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2b)—

(a) must, before being charged with a contravention of subsection (2a), be given written notice of the alleged contravention; and

(b) may only be charged in relation to the contravention if it is not remedied within 7 days after the notice is given.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 10 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

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

Page 25, lines 12 to 16 [clause 42(4), inserted subsection (5)]—Delete inserted subsection (5) and substitute:

(5) in this section—

road means an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles;

road related area means—

(a) the shoulder of a road

(b) an area that divides a road;

(c) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road.

This amendment is consequential on our previous government amendment, and that is that the previous amendment deletes the definition of public place so the definition is no longer relevant. It also inserts a definition of road and road related area, both of which are relevant to our previous amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 43.

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

Page 25, after line 18—Insert:

(a1) Section 116(1)—after 'television' insert:

or by publication or broadcast on the Internet

The government amendments Nos 8, 9 and 10 address the same matter. I propose that this amendment be treated as the test amendment for the three. Section 116(1) provides that a person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of or containing commentary on any candidate, party or issues being submitted to voters in written form or by radio or television unless the material is accompanied by a statement of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material.

Section 116(2) provides exceptions to the disclosure requirement in subsection (1). These are: the publication in a newspaper of a leading article; the publication of a report of certain meetings; the publication in a newspaper of an article, letter, report or other matter if the newspaper contains a statement to the effect that the person whose name and address appears in the statement takes responsibility for the publication of all electoral material published in the newspaper; a news service; or current affairs program on radio or TV.

Government amendment No. 8 amends section 116(1) so the requirement to include a statement will also apply to material consisting of, or containing, commentary on any candidate, party or issues being submitted to voters that is published or broadcast on the internet.

Mrs REDMOND: I know that the internet is a very broad term, but again I ask the question: will it apply to telecommunication by mobile phone? I would assume it is not caught by that. I wonder whether the term 'internet' is actually broad enough to capture everything that we presumably will be taking about like blogs, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and all the other things that could occur.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. We aim to catch web pages and, therefore, it would cover blog sites, Wikipedia and internet newspapers such as Adelaidenow, but we do not want to go into twittering because that is too much like individual communication over a mobile phone. So, that is where we are putting the boundary.

Mrs REDMOND: I take it that the essence of what you are trying to do does not change section 116 of the act, except to try to cover that extra area, but I am a little concerned about the idea that it will inhibit an individual's use of their own web page. Since most members of parliament now have a web page, why is it not reasonable for a member of parliament to be able to put on their web page, to which someone has to go to look at, whatever is appropriate, in terms of their political commentary, without necessarily complying with section 116?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There needs to be common sense in the application of any law. For instance, dealing with the Electoral Act, strictly, there is a legal requirement that when you send out direct mail during an election campaign—and by 'direct mail' I mean a letter from a candidate to people on the electoral roll—you have at the bottom 'Written and authorised by' and the name of the very person who is sending the letter. So, if I send a letter to Mr Joe Bloggs of Coglin Street, Brompton on my letterhead 'Michael Atkinson, Member for Croydon', and I address him 'Dear Joe' and down the bottom I write 'Yours sincerely, Michael Atkinson' and I sign it 'Mick' and send him a cheery little note about common interests—so, it is clearly a letter from me—strictly, under the Electoral Act, if it is in the election period, I then have to go on and add at the bottom 'Written and authorised by Michael Atkinson of 488 Port Road, Welland'. Clearly, to omit that last line is not a great mischief.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Okay. The member for Heysen makes a good point, and I will come to that. So, in this area, if a voter has accessed a website of, say, Isobel Redmond and there is political commentary about the merits of her Labor opponent in Heysen, clearly, the author of that is Isobel Redmond. It is Isobel Redmond who is taking responsibility for that commentary. It does not lie in the mouth of the voter to complain to the Electoral Commissioner that he accessed the member for Heysen's web page, there was criticism of the Labor candidate and, astonishingly, it did not bear the tag line 'Written and authorised by Isobel Redmond'. You have to just exercise some common sense here.

The member for Heysen is right that there is a problem with websites that are phoney, that are masquerading as the website of the candidate or member. We have seen that with Daniel Gannon in Rob Lucas's office, with Rob Lucas's knowledge and consent, fraudulently publishing online material that purported to come from the Premier. Fraud—and Rob Lucas knew about it. That is something that will be dealt with elsewhere in the law. In the bill we have an out clause by regulation to exempt prescribed material from this requirement where it would be onerous or silly to require it—and the direct mail letter or the websites are good examples of that.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 25—

After line 22—Insert:

(1a) Section 116(2)(a)—delete 'newspaper' and substitute:

journal, or an electronic publication on the Internet,

(1b) Section 116(2)(c)—delete paragraph (c)

(1c) Section 116(2)(d)—after 'television' insert:

or broadcast on the Internet

After line 24—Insert:

(3) Section 116—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 44 and 45 passed.

Schedule 1.

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

Page 26, lines 14 to 16 [Schedule 1 Part 2]—Delete schedule 1 Part 2

Mrs REDMOND: I have two questions on the transitional provision. We have now dealt with clause 44, but I was going to comment on the way through that I was puzzled by the provision in section 119 that allows for an offender to be removed from a polling booth. The section provides 'a person who contravenes subsection (1) can be removed', and we have added 'including a candidate or a scrutineer'. I thought, 'Well, were they not people beforehand?' I gather that there may have been some dispute about whether there was an authority for the Electoral Commissioner or someone to remove someone who was misbehaving, but it rather does imply that, of necessity, candidates are not necessarily people.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We are sorry; we did not mean that.

Mrs REDMOND: I gather that you did not. First, I want to ask a question about clause 2 of part 1 of the schedule, that is, the amendment to the Constitution Act and the provision that changes the existing requirement for the review of the boundaries to commence within three months and pushes that all the way out to two years. Three months does seem a little too soon after the election, especially considering that you would need time for the postal votes to come in, all the sorting out to be done as to what the votes were, how many electors there were, who cast their votes and all sorts of things like that, so I appreciate the need to move it from three months.

However, given that we have a fixed four-year term and given that, normally, the review of boundaries will take a good 12 months, the new timetable would seem to get us way over to the other side of that four-year term. I am just wondering whether the Attorney could explain the rationale behind that shift. Whilst I appreciate the need to shift from the very quick end of three months, why would we move it out for two years?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The aim of the change is so that the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission can take into account the material generated by the census.

Mrs REDMOND: Are our electoral four-year terms currently in line with—and, if so, where—the census and the release of data from the commonwealth statistician from the census?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We are not properly aligned at the moment. We will cope with it. We will more often than not get the census material by carrying this amendment, but there will be some years where the timing of the redistribution will inevitably be awkward.

Mr PENGILLY: I am not trying to read the Attorney's mind, I would not dare. I am very much of the view that going out to two years, with regard to the census, or whatever, is irrelevant. I think that two years is far too long. I note what the member for Heysen said, that in her opinion three months is too short. Well, it may be, but six months would seem to me to be a reasonable amount of time. But going out to two years, given the machinations of electorates, political parties and heaven knows what else, seems an extraordinarily long time.

I know that in the case of my own electorate, where I had to lose some 4,000 electors as a result of the redistribution, and judging by the numbers of changes of electors that I get from the electoral people monthly—I seem to sign somewhere between 300 and 500 on almost a monthly basis—I have an enormous number of transient people, and a fair number deceased as well, by virtue of the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: God's waiting room.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, you may well call it that, but the demographics of my area are such that I do have significant numbers of people who pass away. I would put on the record that I think that two years is far too long. It may suit the bureaucrats and those who are organising all of this, but at the end of the day it boils down to whether we, as elected members of parliament, should be calling the tune on this. I think two years is too long.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This is the advice we received from the deputy commissioner, and we accepted his advice. There may be some force in what the member for Finniss says. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that a House of Assembly member is elected on one set of boundaries and then within months of being elected may find that he or she has lost 4,000 constituents to another state district—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And will lose them at the next election, that is right. The member for Heysen is right to say that—and has picked up 4,000 others from another state district to take effect at the next election. If the member wishes to be elected he or she will have to start serving those 4,000 new constituents from the very moment that the Boundaries Commission reports. I think it is somewhat unsatisfactory that this happens so early in the term.

Moreover, that it happens so early means that up-to-date statistical information is not available in formulating the boundaries. So, we think that a redistribution closer to the projected general election is better. Experience may show us that the member for Finniss is right and it should be under two years, but that is what we are going with.

Mr PENGILLY: Just as a follow-up, I will lose the township of Goolwa and will take in Mount Compass and Sellicks Beach. Sellicks Beach is almost foreign country to the rest of the Fleurieu Peninsula, with the exception that it is connected to Myponga through the school and the sporting clubs. Indeed, there is quite a movement there.

The people of Sellicks Beach—and I use this as an example—have really not heard of myself as the member for Finniss. I have had this discussion with the member for Kaurna. I get on very well with the member for Kaurna, who currently services Sellicks Beach, but it is in my interest to make the people in Sellicks Beach aware of my presence.

Whether that person is a member of the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal Party, or whatever party, they may only find out a reasonably short time before the election—and when I say a reasonably short time, six to 12 months—that they are going to have that area in their electorate, which not only makes it difficult for the candidate, from whichever party, but it also makes it difficult for people in those areas—and I am using Sellicks Beach as an example, not specifically because it is my electorate—to realise that they are going in to another electorate at the next state election.

I can see that in due course, in my current electorate, the seat will congregate around the South Coast, just by virtue of numbers. I am concerned that we are not giving a fair go to the people who live in areas that are going to change, nor indeed are we giving a fair go to candidates, from whatever political party, who are standing as candidates at the next election by shortening that timeframe.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If I can interpret the words of the member for Finniss to the committee, what he is really saying is that the member into whose electorate these new constituents are introduced does not get the full value of incumbency if the redistribution occurs too late. My argument would be that we are not here to give members or candidates the advantage of incumbency; that is not a proper consideration for the parliament.

Mr PENGILLY: I do not disagree with that at all. I would make the point that it is difficult—and take us right out of the equation—for the electorate at large because, as the Attorney would well know, there are many people who could not care less about politics and find voting an absolute pain in the posterior; however, that is the system that we have, it is the best system that we have come up with and it works quite well. But I would reiterate the point that it is difficult for some to come to grips with.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one other question on the transitional provisions relating to part 3. I notice that the Attorney's amendment seems to now delete part 2 of the schedule, but part 3, concerning the transitional provisions, basically states that a political party that is newly registered when this act comes into force is not going to have to re-prove its registration until the end of September next year. There have been some recent new parties and my question is really about the proof of registration for those sorts of parties. We are aware of the FREE Party that the bikies have formed, and I note that, in the GovernmentGazette in the last couple of weeks, a Royalties for Regions Party has just formed and appears to have one member of parliament as its basis for formation.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And that is?

Mrs REDMOND: The National member of the National Socialist government on that side of the house. My question is: is there an opportunity at the moment for people to run around as a National or an Independent member, or whatever, and register all sorts of parties that might be legitimised by having one member of parliament rather than having the necessary number of members to substantiate their existence and therefore be registered for the next state election? I take it that that is the case.

The other part of the question is: just what is the status of numerous parties registered to one actual party? Do they each have to prove their membership? You could obviously do it with one member of parliament. The FREE Party, for instance, does not have a member of parliament at this stage, so it has to come up with the requisite number of members of parliament. I know that there has been discussion in the earlier part of the debate about the nature of affiliated organisations. So, the Labor Party has country Labor and could have city Labor, metropolitan Labor and western suburbs Labor, or whatever. Similarly, the Liberal Party could form country Liberal, and so on. What is the status of those? Does each such registration require either a member of parliament or a separate group of people to be registered separate to—

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

Mrs REDMOND: —no, different from but separate to—the people who have registered the Labor Party, for instance? Can the Labor Party simply go on ad nauseam registering various groups as parties, or does it have to have separate groups to substantiate its registration?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: An MP can be relied upon by two or more parties and, indeed, subject to the consent of the commissioner, the party could have many secondary names or identities.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The CHAIR: We now return to clause 5 which was postponed, so there is no vote of the committee in relation to that. However, the Attorney, indicating an amendment to clause 5, has also indicated an amendment to clause 7, which has been considered; therefore clause 7 will have to be reconsidered. In the meantime, we can go straight to clause 5 and the Attorney can move the amendment standing in his name. I have also received an amendment from the member for Mitchell.

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

Page 4, after line 21 [clause 5(3)]—Insert:

(d) provide a person who is a nominated candidate in an election with an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll for—

(i) in the case of person who is a candidate in an election for a House of Assembly district—that district; or

(ii) in the case of a person who is a candidate in a Legislative Council election—the Legislative Council district.

(2a) If, in accordance with an electoral redistribution under the Constitution Act 1934, the area of a House of Assembly district (the relevant district) will, from the day on which the general election of members of the House of Assembly is next held, be altered to include any part of the area of another House of Assembly district, the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll for that other House of Assembly district to—

(a) the current House of Assembly member for the relevant district;

(b) any person who is a nominated candidate for an election in the relevant district.

Amendment No. 1 contains two new subsections to be inserted into section 26. The first is a new paragraph (d) of section 26(2). As amended by this bill, section 26(2) requires the Electoral Commissioner to provide members of parliament and the registered officers of registered political parties up-to-date copies of the rolls.

During the debate on clause 5 of the bill, some members expressed concern that candidates were not also entitled to up-to-date copies of the relevant roll. New paragraph (d) provides that the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide a person who is a nominated candidate in an election with an up-to-date copy of the relevant electoral roll, being, in the case of a candidate for the House of Assembly district, a copy of that district's roll, and, in the case of a candidate for the Legislative Council, the Legislative Council roll.

Admittedly, this does not go as far as the member suggested. To be entitled to the role under section 26(2), a person must be a nominated candidate. To extend it further, to say a person who intends to run as a candidate would, in the government's view, render section 26(2) impossible to enforce. Any person could claim, at any point after an election, that he or she intended contesting the next election and would therefore become entitled to up-to-date copies of the roll. Come the next election, they could claim simply that they have changed their mind, and it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to establish otherwise.

New subsection (2a) addresses a concern raised by the member for Mitchell. It provides that, where the area of a House of Assembly district will, from the day on which a general election is next held, be altered to include any part of the area of another House of Assembly district, the Electoral Commissioner must on request provide an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll for that other district to the current House of Assembly member and any person nominated as a candidate for that district.

Mrs REDMOND: I thank the Attorney because I think he has made a genuine effort to fix the problem. Whilst I understand his reasoning in saying that he is only going to allow the access to the roll for an actual candidate and the difficulty that might come about from people simply saying that they intend to be a candidate, that still seems to me to be problematic, because presumably a person will only be recognised as a candidate once the writs are issued and they have nominated for the election, and that is only going to leave them about two weeks before the election, which is going to be way too late. It might be all right for mailing, say, but even then people like Salmat and so on (and candidates are likely to use that rather than Australia Post) are going to have difficulty with that short time frame in terms of making that useful. Certainly, for doorknocking purposes and so on I would suggest that it is too short a time.

However, I understand the point the Attorney is trying to make. Indeed, I think the member for Mitchell had in mind something along the lines of making it a requirement that it could be obtained for 'political but no other purposes' or some such phrase so that the mischief that we are trying to avoid is addressed. People might declare themselves as intending to be candidates, get the electoral roll and then use it for commercial purposes. At the end of the day, nothing in the Attorney's proposition, whilst it is an improvement, addresses the problem of the use of the roll for commercial purposes once the candidate has got that roll. That is the first point that I want to make.

My second point relates to the second provision which deals with the changing boundaries. Pardon me if I sound cynical, but it takes us back to the bit that we were just dealing with about why we are now going to push out so late the consideration of where the new boundaries will be. If the obligation under this clause is for the candidate or member to be given the new boundaries, the effect of the previous amendment will be that those new boundaries will not be available until so late that it becomes no different from what currently happens. Therefore, I find it a slightly cynical exercise that that is occurring. At least, I will concede, Attorney, that it is an improvement on what we currently have in your amendment originally proposed by the bill.

Mr HANNA: I humbly suggest to the Attorney that, if he is going to maintain the course with the amendment that he has drafted, he consider some sort of transmission of the roll clause such as I have included in my amendment. Obviously, the Attorney-General and I are thinking along the same lines with our respective amendments to clause 5, but I included a clause which makes it an offence to provide a roll to another person knowing or having a reason to suspect that the roll will be used by that other person for other than a political communication.

The Attorney's amendments only make it an offence for the person who has received a copy of the roll under this section. In other words, if the person who is a nominated candidate does the wrong thing with the information, they are guilty of an offence, but they could presumably pass it on and, if they do that, that other person would not be committing an offence.

The other question I have for the Attorney is in relation to nominated candidates. Surely, we can enable candidates when they are normally selected for elections, perhaps six or 12 months out from an election, to have access to the roll for these areas. It should not rely on the writ being issued for the election before someone is called a candidate, otherwise the section becomes superfluous.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 4, after line 32, [clause 5(3)]—Insert:

(4) If a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section, a person who uses that copy of the roll, or information contained in that copy of the roll, for a purpose other than a State, Federal or local government purpose is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

This amendment addresses a concern raised during debate on clause 5. It seeks to insert a new subsection (4) in section 26. I hope this is self-explanatory by reference to the previous debate. It is intended to prevent the misuse of roll information provided under section 26(2). I think the example we were using was a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise at Jetty Road, Glenelg.

Dr McFetridge: Anzac Highway.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Anzac Highway, Glenelg. The point I was trying to make is that this proprietor could claim to be a candidate for Morphett at the next election. Therefore, under what was being argued by the other side, he would be entitled to an up-to-date copy of the roll and accumulated monthly updates. He could then write to all the new people in the area advertising his wares. I expressed the point of view that I thought this was wrong and that there ought to be some provision in the act to stop misuse of information.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to clarify the effect of the proposal in amendment No. 2 and take up the issue the member for Mitchell addressed in his previous comment. The way I read new subsection (4) is that, if a copy of a roll is provided to a person under this section (who could be a candidate, a member, a party or whatever), a person who uses that copy of the roll for a purpose other than state, federal or local government purposes is guilty of an offence. So, that would capture someone who used it for a commercial purpose, and I presume it would also capture, for instance, a candidate who may legitimately have obtained the roll but misused it by passing it onto someone for a commercial offence. Would it capture someone who inadvertently allowed someone access to it for other than a federal, state or local government offence?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My advice is that it will catch people down the chain.

Amendment carried.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 4, after line 21 [clause 5(3)]—Insert:

(d) provide a person who intends to be a candidate in an election with an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll for—

(i) in the case of a person who intends to be a candidate in an election for a House of Assembly district—that district; or

(ii) in the case of a person who intends to be a candidate in a Legislative Council election—the Legislative Council district.

(2a) If, in accordance with an electoral redistribution under the Constitution Act1934, the area of a House of Assembly district (the relevant district) will, from the day on which a general election of members of the House of Assembly is next held, be altered to include any part of the area of another House of Assembly district, the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll for that other House of Assembly district to—

(a) the current House of Assembly member for the relevant district;

(b) any person who intends to be a candidate for an election in the relevant district.

I move this amendment because we have not really been able to resolve the question of when a candidate would be able to receive an up-to-date copy of the roll. There may be an implication in the Attorney-General's amendment to suggest that it is only after the issue of the writs and somebody is formally nominated as a candidate that they are able to get the roll. That renders the permission superfluous because it will be of very little use, in the final three or four weeks, to people who want to communicate with that electorate, and that includes current members who, unless they have Liberal or Labor colleagues, will not be able to communicate with new electors in a new part of their electorate after a redistribution.

That is why in my amendment I have said that a person who 'intends' to be a candidate in an election should be eligible to receive a copy. Maybe this needs to be worked through because the current unsatisfactory situation remains that, where my boundaries have changed, there are people I want to look after and communicate with because they will be determining whether or not they vote for me. I want to be able to communicate with them, even though I am not, in terms of the Attorney-General's amendment, a nominated candidate for an election in that electorate.

The Attorney-General provides, I suppose, an incumbency clause to help sitting members with the problem I brought to the house; nonetheless, we are left with an uneven playing field, and that is part of the problem.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I understand the criticism from members opposite that I will not give everyone who puts up his hand to say he is going to be a candidate the roll and monthly updates. I understand the criticism. I understand the member for Mitchell saying that I am making it easy for sitting members, including members whose electorates have changed, but I am making it hard for people who are not members of parliament.

I stand by that prohibition because of the enormous risk of misuse of the roll if we give it to everyone who says he or she is going to be a candidate. However, let us pause for a minute and think how many people who are going to be challengers in a state district at the next election—genuinely going to be challengers—cannot get the roll before nomination.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of them will get the roll. The vast majority of them will get it in electronic form, and they will get it from some political ally. We know that there are many personal friendships and informal alliances in parliament and that there are any number of sources for a genuine candidate to get hold of the electoral roll for the seat for which he or she is not the member.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am not sure that that is right, because the prohibition is on using it for other than state, federal or local government purposes. Well, let us take the celebrated friendship of Nick Xenophon and the member for Mitchell. Now, if the member for Mitchell wants access for his friends—for allied candidates—to state districts for which they intend to run at the next election, he tees up access through his good friend Nick Xenophon who is a member of the upper house and who has access to the electronic roll for the whole of the state. Let us be realistic about it: very few candidates will be disadvantaged by this provision. If they are genuine candidates they will end up with the roll.

The CHAIR: Can I clarify for the member for Mitchell? Because of the timing of this, it is a little difficult to handle it. The amendment moved by the member for Mitchell effectively amends the Attorney's amendment which has been passed and which is now the motion. I suggest that the member for Mitchell either formally say that he moves that that amendment be replaced or point out the words that are different from the Attorney's now motion.

Mr HANNA: I do not mind if it is taken as an amendment to the amendment, but it was on file as an amendment in its own right, and in my remarks I pointed out the difference between someone who is a nominated candidate and someone who intends to be a candidate.

The CHAIR: I understand that; it is merely a technical issue. I clarify that your amendment effectively inserts into the now motion the words 'who intends to be a candidate'.

Mr HANNA: That is right.

The CHAIR: The advice of the table officer is that the impact is to insert 'who intends to be a candidate in an election' into the first line of (d) and the first line of (2a)(b).

Mr HANNA: Do not forget the placita.

Mrs REDMOND: Wherever the words 'who is a candidate' appear in the Attorney-General's provision, the member for Mitchell's amendment proposes to substitute the words 'who intends to be a candidate'. It appears four times.

The CHAIR: Is that the effect of your amendment?

Mr HANNA: Spot on.

The CHAIR: We will record that as being the amendment: to insert those words wherever appearing.

Mrs REDMOND: I indicate that I am minded to support the proposal by the member for Mitchell, because it seems to me that it does address the issue that I spoke to earlier. I recognise that there is some difficulty, but the Attorney's existing proposal is so limiting that a genuine candidate will not get access to the rolls until too late.

It seems to me that the balance tips in favour of the member for Mitchell's proposal that we allow it to be for a person who intends to be a candidate, because we have already passed the Attorney's other provision which will punish misuse. Therefore, if we already have a provision in there that, if you use this for any improper purpose, that is, other than a federal, state or local election, there is a penalty of potentially $10,000 for that misuse, then you create a better level playing field (to use the member for Mitchell's term) by allowing someone who says they want to be a candidate and who wants the rolls to get the rolls at whatever time suits them rather than in the last two weeks before an election, when it may be too late to be of any use but at the same time being aware that if they then misuse that access to the roll once they have it they are liable to a penalty under the provision we have already inserted into the legislation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am aware of the member for Heysen's and the member for Mitchell's comments in moving this, but I think there is another solution to this. It seems to me that, if an amendment is passed that provides for those intending to be a candidate, the problem will arise over what level of intention will trigger the clause. It seems to me that the simplest thing to do, given that we have fixed term elections, is give the Electoral Commissioner the authority under the various legislation to open the nominations for seats six months before and have the closing date at the normal time. Anyone who then—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You could do that anyway. Then someone has to pay the nomination fee and go through the process to actually nominate. Attorney, I raised this issue before. You are being flippant; I appreciate you just got back from your exciting trip to Greece and all those places that we mere mortals do not get to go to. The simple fact is that you could simply go to a commercial agent and say, 'I have the whole electoral roll; if you give me $20,000 that'll cover the $10,000 fine and I'll pocket the other $10,000.' That is available under the act.

I think the penalty is a nonsense. I believe that the penalty should be $10,000 plus any commercial gain. I think the solution to it is to make the person nominate rather than (with due respect to the member for Mitchell's amendment) have the intention to nominate. I think they should nominate and be given a longer nomination period, because I support the principle that a candidate should be treated equally.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Now you're in opposition you do.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; I have always supported it. In government, from memory, our side supported the Independents having to disclose donations, which is not required. So, we have always argued for equality of candidates.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Nice try!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just think that all candidates should be treated equally and, once candidates have nominated and get the roll, I would give them a longer nomination period. I see no problem with that. I think that is the solution to it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 4, after line 32 [clause 5(3)]—Insert:

(4) A person who is provided with a copy of a roll under this section must not—

(a) use the roll, or information obtained from the roll, for other than political communication; or

(b) provide the roll, or information obtained from the roll, to another person knowing or having reason to suspect that the roll or information will be used by that other person for other than political communication.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for two years.

This is where I have different wording in respect of the Attorney-General when one considers how the roll might properly be put to use. The penalty I am suggesting should be for using it for other than a political communication. The Attorney-General has said that it may be used for a state, federal or local government purpose. I am curious about the wording, because that suggests that it may not merely be political, but the federal, state or local government administration sending out letters to people. I am not sure if that is what was intended but it seems to me that, if we follow the implied wording in the constitution and talk about political communication, we are sure to be on firm ground.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do not really think that much turns on the definition.

The CHAIR: The member for Mitchell, again, we have the difficulty that you had effectively filed an alternate amendment to the Attorney's amendment. We have now passed the Attorney's amendment. I am just trying to see the form that your amendment should take. Is it, in fact, to delete the words currently in the clause as a result the Attorney's amendment and to substitute your words instead? I cannot quite come to grips with it.

Mr HANNA: Because I am in an agreeable mood, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. I have made my point and put it on the record. It is there for consideration by others should they wish to take it up. I do not think that we should be legislating for council administrations to be using the roll in that way, but the committee has made its decision, after all, in terms of the version that it would prefer in respect of the penalty for misuse.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 7—reconsidered.

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

Page 5, after line 10—Insert:

(2a) Section 27A(3)—delete subsection (3)

The member for Davenport will be pleased that he has lived to see, after seven long years (eight maybe), the fulfilment of our common intention. Section 27A(3) provides an elector with the option of requesting that his or her details, sex, place of birth and now date of birth are not disclosed to a person of a prescribed class under section 27A(2). It was the government's intention that subsection (3) be deleted. Owing to an oversight this was not included in the bill as introduced.

Mr HANNA: Does this clause mean that people will have no choice but to volunteer those personal details to members of parliament?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 32 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Long title.

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

Delete 'and the Local Government Act 1999'

This amendment is consequential.

Mr HANNA: While we are dealing with the long title, perhaps we could refer to the bill as the incumbency law.

Amendment carried; long title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.