ELECTORAL (PUBLICATION OF ELECTORAL MATERIAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:47): I was speaking prior to lunch about the dirty tactics undertaken during the recent state/federal election. I think what has happened is that the faith of the public—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Federal election?

Mr TRELOAR: Sorry, my apologies: state election. I really think that South Australians expect and deserve better than the tactics that were undertaken during the last state election. It also, I believe, reflects badly on all of us in this house who have chosen this profession, and undeservedly so. In essence, I would like to echo the Liberal Party sentiments of support in terms of the importance of this select committee in relation to this matter. I would also like briefly to discuss one last matter, particularly in relation to my electorate of Flinders, and it has also been mentioned today by a number of other country members, that is, the issue of postal votes.

Unfortunately, the government decided not to issue the writs for the election until only one month prior to the date of the election, leaving just two weeks prior to the election date for the closing of candidates. In essence this meant that there were only two working weeks for the Electoral Commission to get postal votes out and returned to allow people to vote. Obviously, those two weeks are critical. It just so happened that there was a long weekend in there as well, so it came down to nine working days.

I have kept a record of the number of my constituents who contacted me in regard to this matter and who indicated that, despite having applied for a postal vote, either they did not receive in time or at all their form on which to lodge a postal vote. As members would be well aware, it is compulsory to vote in this state, in this country. By issuing the writs and closing nominations for candidates so late in the day, what we have done is deprive people of their obligation to vote and their opportunity to vote in the state election. With those few remarks I close my comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to think, during your grievance speech, of the French word for 'grandstand', but it did not come to me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will go to a dictionary and report to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling) (15:50): I rise to support this bill. I agree with its intent, as I did last year when we first attempted to do this. The Liberal Party, in their road rage for having lost another election because they cannot mount a strategy to save their lives, have attempted to blame the people who voted for their loss. What they are saying is that they engaged in a tactic in 2006 which they say in 2010 is reprehensible. So, when they engaged in that tactic in 2006 in the seat of Mawson with the then Liberal sitting member, this government attempted to stop that behaviour. The Liberal Party, led by members in the upper house, voted against this government's attempt—

Ms Chapman: If it was so reprehensible, why did you do it in 2010?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let me finish and I will tell you. We attempted to stop that practice, yet the Liberal Party voted against it. So, any reasonable person would have the expectation that, when the Liberal Party designed this tactic in 2006, used this tactic in 2006 and when this government attempted to outlaw it and they then voted against it, the reason they voted against it was that they were going to do it again. Once bitten, twice shy.

It always amazes me that the deputy leader—sorry, did I call you 'deputy leader'? I meant the former deputy leader, the now shadow spokesperson for families and communities, who has responsibility for and carriage of all the things for the Attorney-General in the lower house, other than things that are important. She claims that this is so reprehensible, yet I think back to a little account called Catch Tim, and I wonder where her morals and scruples and her sense of democratic duty were then. Obviously, as president of the Liberal Party, her main focus was raising money for the party and she did not really care how she did it or how she raised it. So, I think it is a bit rich for the member for Bragg—

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is an outrageous allegation by the minister for whatever he is. The allegation about raising money, no matter how that was done, is absolutely disgraceful. It is not only not within the debate but also it is insulting and untrue, and I ask him to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are two things. First, you may make a personal explanation, I believe, if you feel that you have been misrepresented, after the debate. Secondly, minister, did you want to withdraw anything?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Unlike the member for Bragg, if she took offence, I will withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is very kind of you. Please carry on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But I will say this: dodgy accounts such as Catch Tim really started the ball rolling in terms of the quick dive into the gutter by the Liberal Party. I have always found it to be really funny when they turn up here crying with indignation about what happened in the last state election. What happened in the last state election was very clear: the Liberal Party and its team were rejected by the people of South Australia. The Liberal Party, not being able to cope with that result now three times in a row, have formed a sort of road rage about that decision and are looking to blame everyone else but themselves.

They will not look inwardly and say to themselves, 'Maybe our tactics weren't right, maybe we focused too much on our leader, maybe our broad "let's try to win all 47 seats" strategy was not the right one.' Call me crazy but I think targeting 24 seats rather than 47 might have been the issue. Perhaps it was the way in which resources were allocated. I understand that the Attorney-General had an amazing campaign run against him—one that you could be proud of in a marginal seat—and I think that young man received a 12 or 13 per cent swing in Enfield. What geniuses!

I understand that Julian Sheezel, the state director, the acting state director or the campaign director—whatever the Liberal Party title is for these people—has now been moved on to run the federal campaign, so we have informed members in safe Labor seats that the Liberal Party cannot win to beware of a massive campaign coming to them soon and that seats such as Port Adelaide will be campaigned like they have never been campaigned before. Members opposite should not blame us for losing but, rather, blame themselves and their own tactics.

Mrs Vlahos: What about Mitchell?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I thank the member for Taylor for reminding me of their militant stupidity. They were not only militantly stupid but they were also militantly stupid often. For the life of me, why the Liberal Party would prefer to have a Labor member in this house rather than an Independent is beyond me, but long may that strategy reign.

The way they targeted the seat of Mitchell beggars belief. We saw the frustration on the face of the former member for Mitchell at the declaration of the poll, when he engaged in a bit of backwards and forwards with Mr McCance, the father of the Liberal candidate, and said, 'You just don't get it.' That is true; they just do not get it. That sort of thinking within the Liberal Party is absolutely fantastic and should be commended. Long may they run these types of campaign, because the only people they have to blame for these losses are themselves.

A complaint was lodged with the Electoral Commission and it was rejected. The Liberal Party has done this in the past yet makes no apology whatsoever. In fact, my advice is that they try to deny it ever happened. That is simply not true. Members of the Liberal Party have been up to their necks in electoral skulduggery for a long time. Election signs have gone missing; they have put out unauthorised material; they have been letterboxing in the middle of the night. These sorts of personal attacks—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The strategist is back in the house—the mastermind, the man they go to when they are in trouble, the man they listen to, the member for Kavel, the marvel from Kavel. When they are in trouble and need a bit of strategy they knock on his door. I personally hope he rises to the top. The sheer hypocrisy of the way they decried what happened in Mawson astounds me. I had things done to me in my electorate, but I just took it. I do not complain; I just take it and go about my job.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No; it is not my style. It is more in the tradition of the member of Unley, from what I understand of the history of that seat; it is not something—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And moving on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not something we do in the Labor Party. I think the hypocrisy shown by the Liberals in this matter is astounding, and how they do it with a straight face is beyond me, especially members of the upper house who voted against the government's attempting to rule this out before the last election. Any reasonable person who looked at this objectively would realise that members of parliament when defending their seats have been subjected to dodgy practices by the Liberal Party. When we attempted to outlaw those dodgy practices and the Liberal Party voted against it, one can only assume that they will do it again.

Let us forget this argument about how holy they are and how bad we are. The truth is that the Liberal Party has been up to its neck in this sort of thing for decades. You only need to go back to during that brief little split and what their members were doing to each other in campaigning, what they would do in terms of ringing up Labor MPs and Labor candidates and helping them with support for their campaigns to boost the Labor vote. I mean, really, if you cannot catch and kill your own.

I would like to finish on the myth the Liberal Party is putting around that it really won the election but was robbed because of a boundary drawing that did not reflect true democracy. I say to the Liberal Party that to get to that two-party preferred figure of 51.6 it has to exclude people whose votes were excluded—their votes were excluded.

I look to the members for Frome and Mount Gambier and Fisher, the votes of the people who voted 1 for those members were not distributed. However, the Liberal Party has no problem washing away the intent of those three electorates, what they wanted. They did not want the Liberal Party or the Labor Party candidate elected in those seats, they chose Independents; but the Liberal Party, in its road rage, its rage against losing this election again, three times in a row, is quite happy to wash away the intent and hard work of those three Independent members, who were elected to this house fair and square.

Is it not surprising that their main competitor was not the Australian Labor Party but the Liberal Party of South Australia? This is their thinking. When they make applications to the Electoral Commission for redistributions, they will say, 'They are not conservatives', but when they want to get up in the house and argue that they won the two-party preferred vote, they will then say, 'They are conservative seats, you have to count those votes for us; they belong to us, so therefore we won the election and therefore we want the boundaries redrawn.' Well, you cannot have it both ways. That is called hypocrisy, something the Liberal Party is exceptionally good at.

Those three Independents keep on hearing this rubbish about, 'We won the vote; we got 51.6 per cent of the vote, we should be in government'. It insults every single voter who voted for Don Pegler, who voted for Geoff Brock, and who voted for Bob Such, because they did not vote for the Liberal Party. Their votes were not distributed, and the only way you can arrive at that two-party preferred figure is to discount those votes. So how about a bit of fairness and honesty from the Liberal Party? Of course we will not have that; it just wants the road rage.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:03): I support this bill, but I make the point that it does not go far enough. I have an amendment before the house, but I can indicate now that I will not pursue that amendment because, having talked to the Attorney, he has said that once the Electoral Commissioner's report is complete we will need to revisit the whole area of matters pertaining to elections. So, I think it appropriate that I withdraw that amendment.

The Attorney also raised concern (and I have discussed this with one senior member of the opposition) that the amendment in its current form may create problems for some people by way of threatening behaviour in the community. So, I think it would be wise to withdraw that amendment, wait to see the report of the Electoral Commissioner, and then respond accordingly.

This particular bill, which is fairly brief, deals with a couple of matters. As I said, I support it, but I would like to quickly mention some other things that concern me. Obviously, one is the how-to-vote cards and the way they were used in some circumstances in the last state election, and the other matter relates to the mechanics of the election—this was touched on by the member for Flinders—that, in effect, there were only nine working days for the commission to deal with postal ballots. I think that issue needs to be addressed.

I do not think people need the lengthy amount of time that is normally provided to get their nomination in. If you do not know that you are going to stand for state election, when it is already set down, in law, at a four-year interval, if you do not know that you are going to run as a candidate then I think there is a bit of a problem. So, that issue needs to be addressed.

The closing date for the close of nominations effectively restricted the commission and, therefore, some people were denied a postal vote, which in other circumstances, I think, they should have, or would have, received. There is an issue too with people who are suffering from dementia. It is a difficult one, but people are guided—I will use a polite euphemism—in their vote by relatives, and that result could be critical in a tight election. I am sure the commissioner will address the integrity of the roll in her report.

Members would be aware that in Victoria they have just introduced, or are about to introduce, measures which allow electors to enrol and update their details on the day of the election. I do not have a problem with that, but I would be interested to hear what the commissioner has to say about the mechanics and feasibility of it. There are some other measures that are being introduced in Victoria, and I am sure the commissioner will have a look at those. The ID card (so-called) that was introduced this year was a useful mechanism and I think that needs to be explored.

The final point which concerns me is that in my electorate, at the last state election in March, one candidate put out material claiming to be a local councillor, the actual words were that the person claimed to be a local councillor, even though they did not live anywhere near the electorate. I wrote to the Electoral Commissioner, and I do not believe that the answer I received is satisfactory. The answer was that it demonstrated the candidate's community participation and ability to juggle work and family commitments.

That is not really the issue. The issue is that it is misleading to claim that you are a local councillor when you are not on the local council—you are on a council but it is not local. That is one of the reasons why I sought to have the addresses of candidates available for those who wanted to check them out, rather than what is often the case, which is a post box number, which does not tell people whether someone is local or not.

I do not have a problem with people living outside their electorate. I think it depends on how they relate to the electorate and the job they do. I do not live within my electorate because the boundaries have changed and unless I get a caravan, with central heating, I do not intend to change every time there is a boundary change.

There are a whole lot of issues that need to be addressed and I await the report of the commissioner. I look forward to the Attorney-General, at that stage, looking and responding to those recommendations so that we can have a comprehensive look at this question of the conduct of elections. Ideally, any review should be chaired by a retired judge, or someone similar, because I think the temptation is too great for people who are actually involved in elections and electioneering to seek an advantage. I await with interest the Attorney's response to the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:09): Thank you, Speaker—I know you prefer to remain sexless, so I shall try to deal with that by addressing you as 'Speaker'. The bill we are discussing today obviously came about because of the behaviour of the South Australian Labor Party. I find it interesting that the Labor Party and the State Secretary of the Labor Party, Michael Brown, confirmed this; that is, they will stop misleading people only if it is made illegal. The constant argument from the Labor Party is that they will stop doing this only if it is made illegal.

What does that say about the morals of this Labor Party—the premier Mike Rann and the ministers who work with him; those who worked to deceive South Australians on so many different policy areas in the lead-up to the election, starting with the Adelaide Oval—and what a saga that is becoming? What started off as being a $300 million government contribution now looks like we are heading to $750 million—and all because of a forgetful Treasurer (we are led to believe) and only the Treasurer knew anything about it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am wondering what the relevance of this contribution is to the bill.

Mr PISONI: Let me explain: it is about honesty and integrity, something that the Labor Party does not have, and that is why they need to change the rules to protect themselves from themselves. That is the relevance, Speaker. It is interesting that the former attorney-general, the member for Croydon, would enter the chamber—

Mr Pederick: Of blessed memory.

Mr PISONI: Of blessed memory, thank you, member for Hammond—and his first contribution to the debate this afternoon would be a frivolous point of order—the same type of distractive tactics they used throughout their election campaigns. Whether they push the boundaries or whether they are morally wrong, the only time they will not use them is when they are illegal. That is what the what Michael Brown, the Secretary of the Labor Party has said: 'We need to protect ourselves from this act. We need to protect ourselves from—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Do you want to talk about something like that outside? I have no idea what you are talking about, but perhaps you could tell people about it outside. Why don't you do that?

The SPEAKER: Order! If the members would like to talk outside, I suggest that the member for Unley sits down and they go and talk outside, but if not, could you continue your remarks?

Mr PISONI: I ask for your protection.

The SPEAKER: I will give you the protection. The member for Croydon is being very naughty over there, but you may like to stop responding to his interjections and finish your remarks.

Mr PISONI: I am fearful of using incorrect grammar also, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I am very aware that would probably be the biggest threat from the member for Croydon if you did. You could threaten violence and it would not worry him, but if you use incorrect grammar, then you will get into trouble with the member for Croydon.

Mr PISONI: I fear for his constituents expressing their concerns when he knocks on their door and they say 'less' instead of 'fewer'—God help them.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, I tend to cut them some slack.

Mr PISONI: Of course, you want them to vote for you, but 14 per cent of them changed their mind last time. This bill is all about the Labor Party saving face. You only have to look at some of the interviews that occurred immediately after the election. The member for Mawson was on 891 radio and he was asked by one of the commentators:

…did you cheat your way to a seat in Parliament?

The member for Mawson responded:

No I didn't. I'm very sorry if people feel that way about what happened. What was done—

He went on to try to blame other people. Then Mr Bevan again asked him:

So should it be changed because it's wrong [the legislation], or should it be changed because it's messy?

The member for Mawson responded:

Probably because it's messy.

Not because it is wrong but because it is messy. He was given a second opportunity to say it was wrong. Mr Bevan said:

Not because it's wrong?

The member for Mawson responded:

Well, probably because it's messy.

On two occasions he had the opportunity to tell the 891 listeners that it was wrong to do that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Speaker, I ask for your protection.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Croydon, be quiet. Member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: Still, he refused to acknowledge that it was wrong. We are here in this chamber today not because the member for Mawson thinks it is wrong but because it is messy. That is why we are here. It is messy for the government, it is messy for the member for Mawson and it is messy for the member for Hartley. It is not because the government believes it is wrong; it is because it is messy and now the government is covering its backside. The government said it would do this, and it is doing it in hindsight. The government took all the benefits of abusing the situation, and that was morally wrong, and now it says, 'We've won our third term, so we are happy to take responsibility and change the legislation to protect ourselves.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The interjections coming from the member for Croydon make him sound like he is very proud of those actions. Let me tell you, it is nothing to be proud about, member for Croydon. The Labor Party does have form, and its members take any opportunity that they can twist to benefit their political ambitions. You have to congratulate them. They are a machine; it is all about winning elections. Members do not know what to do when they get there; they do not know what to do for the people when they get there, but they know what to do for themselves.

Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, was at it today, sending out a scare campaign that started down in Noarlunga: 'Risky Abbott set to cancel Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension.' Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, said, 'The Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension is now'—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order, ma'am.

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Croydon? The member for Unley will sit down for a point of order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My point of order is that it is not immediately apparent to me what the relevance is to a bill about not being required to disclose names on a blog site and dodgy how-to-vote cards in discussing material issued by the member for the federal division of Kingston yesterday.

The SPEAKER: I will listen very carefully to the member for Unley and see the relevance.

Mr PISONI: You will find it very relevant, Madam Speaker, because it is about the integrity of the Labor Party. That is what it is about, and that is what this whole legislation is about. It is about making sure that we can force by law some sense of integrity in the South Australian Labor Party. That is what this legislation is all about. Amanda Rishworth goes on to say:

…with the federal coalition admitting that if elected later this year they will have to cancel projects like this in order to fund the many road and rail promises they've made elsewhere in the country.

Why is this true? According to the member for Kingston, it is because Anthony Albanese said so. He told the parliament, so it must be true, and that is why it is here. This is typical of the type of campaign that the Labor Party runs, because it is interested only in benefiting its own political means. That is why we are here today: to protect South Australians from the immoral actions of the Labor Party by making that action illegal.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.