ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill which, as members will be aware, is a bill to substantially amend the Electoral Act 1985. It always gives me great pleasure to speak on electoral matters because I think I am a self-confessed addict to elections.

This year I celebrate 40 years of having been in involved in elections in one way or another. My very first occasion was to sew a banner on a treadle sewing machine to hang around the Goss hall to encourage voters to support the then Liberal candidate. It was actually before the days of election posters, which seems like a long time ago, but there was a time when we did not actually have election posters. In any event, I am very interested in this area, and this aspect of reform is one to which I have given some attention.

It is also an occasion to note, in recognising reform of this act, that our new Speaker, as a long-term member of this house, is someone who has had a very forensic interest in developments and reform in this area. I would hope, notwithstanding his high elevation to the office of Speaker, that he will take the opportunity, as is allowed in the rules, to resume his place in the chamber and make a contribution to this debate because I am sure that it would be worthwhile.

The other matter which I will highlight as a preliminary is that, from our side of politics—being a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, of which I am very proud member—we have just recently celebrated the appointment of our new director. Other political parties call them secretaries and the like but our party has a state director who works closely with the director of the national division, and Mr Geoff Greene has been appointed in that position just recently. He has taken up that challenge in a year when we all are involved (those of us in political parties) with the election federally (now for 14 September 2013), and then the state election at a fixed date, namely the third Saturday in March 2014.

It is going to be an exciting 12 months or so and so it is important that we address some outstanding electoral reform matters which need our attention and which we want to have in place sufficiently early to ensure that everyone knows what they are doing but also to enable the public to have an opportunity to be aware of what its new obligations will be. The Electoral Commissioner in South Australia is principally vested with the responsibility to educate the public. May I commence, in addressing the bill, by referring to some procedural amendments which need to be attended to and which have largely been recommended by the Electoral Commissioner in South Australia. That follows, in fact, some other recommendations of a select committee relating to some very disturbing actions, conduct and behaviour that took place during the general election on 20 March 2010.

May I express my appreciation for the continued work of the Electoral Commissioner and also the select committee members who undertook the appropriate reviews and revision of not only the events of 2010 but also (as the Electoral Commissioner particularly does) advised us on matters to ensure that we give every eligible person in South Australia adequate and appropriate access to their opportunity to vote.

Voting is a very important right of all South Australians over the age of 18 years. We have, in this country, the privilege of voting. There is a legal obligation at a number of levels of government, including those entering state parliament; an obligation to attend at a polling office on election day, or registering through other pre-election processes their entitlement to vote. It is entirely a matter for them whether they ultimately screw up the ballot paper, complete it validly or, in fact, leave some other message for the Electoral Commissioner to dwell on and consider. That is the right we give as to how they might express their preference in the election. However, in Australia they are secure in having the opportunity to vote, and their expression of it is ultimately optional and a choice for them.

Largely then this bill deals with conduct, in addition to the technical matters to which I have referred, and the processes around the election campaign as distinct from the voting procedures. There has been a lot of debate around in relation to the type of voting that we have, whether we should have optional preferential, whether we should maintain preferential or first past the post, and the franchise of those. We sometimes debate in the house whether persons aged between 16 and 18 years should have a vote. We are not dealing with that in this bill, but they are important matters for consideration and I think it is important as members of parliament that we always remain open to review of those areas.

The applications I will not dwell on, but in respect of the remuneration and conditions of office in respect of positions with the Electoral Commission and the protections for voters or electors, as they are prescribed in the act, are not unimportant matters. There are constantly issues, of which I am sure members would be aware, that deal with the suppression of an elector's address and the reasons we have it.

From time to time, probably in all our electorates, we have circumstances brought to our attention where an elector is in a personal circumstance where it would be appropriate for them not to have their address disclosed. Sometimes that relates to the nature of their employment; sometimes it can be a member in the parliament who might be dealing with very sensitive issues and some group in the community might be fearful of being under their scrutiny, and they may wish to retaliate.

I imagine from time to time that those who might be outspoken on people who are repeat offenders in breaking the law—I do not always like to use the bikie example because we have lots of good bikers in South Australia, including those running around in lycra pants—but I refer to people who obviously act in a manner which should be under scrutiny. As members of this parliament we have an obligation to speak out when other people in the community need our protection, and we need to look at legislative ways to undertake that and to ensure that they are protected. Some people who are under that scrutiny do not like it, so there may be members of this very house who, from time to time, may need and should have some protection.

Senior members of the police force and people who are in high public office in the Public Service are always in circumstances where they may be vulnerable, and it is appropriate that their address be kept confidential. More often in my electorate it is a circumstance where there is a domestic situation that has attracted the need for protection. Probably the most significant case I have in my own area is where a person's former partner is in prison and he has a long-term sentence. However, there has been conduct before his arrest and imprisonment and very strong supporting evidence that even upon his release, which will still be a long time to come, he will be a danger and potentially a threat to one of my constituents and members of that person's family.

So, it is important that that person has the opportunity to have her address kept confidential, so the suppression arrangements sometimes need to be executed, and in this instance we are doing some review of that. There is provision also for amendment regarding the electoral rolls being kept up to date, and an amendment with respect to the entitlement to enrolment, which are all important initiatives and they come with our support.

The other areas that follow the select committee of inquiry, which I think are important categories, are as follows: firstly, we have the how-to-vote cards; members know what these are. We know that in elections frequently persons offer a card to prospective voters, to the electors, identifying a preference for voting and how they might want to vote, if they wish to support a particular political party or a particular candidate, that would most likely support the successful election of that person. This is for both upper and lower houses in the state parliament and, of course, there are different voting systems in both.

Our voting system is a preferential voting system and it is not an optional preferential voting system, so I think it is fair to say that how-to-vote cards are an important aid to a prospective elector who is clear in what they want but, because of the complexity of the obligation in respect of valid voting, would seek some guidance. Therefore, they are an important aspect to have available.

The events during the 2010 election, which are now famous and which was a tactic utilised by the Australian Labor Party and which was visibly touted in the seat of Mawson, are legendary. I will say that there were people in that election campaign in the Australian Labor Party as candidates who did not elect to pursue that tactic, and they should be applauded. They had integrity in relation to this, or, perhaps additionally, confidence that they were going to win anyway without using the tactic.

However, the candidate for Mawson, now a member of the parliament and now indeed a minister, elected to take advantage of that tactic, and he has gone into the annals of contribution to electoral standards, low as they were, as a result of it. I will not dwell on the detail of it. The select committee had a look at these matters, and it was very clear, as a result of their investigation, that they recommended, in line with other interstate registration of how-to-vote card practices, as follows:

That the Electoral Act be amended so that only how-to-vote cards or second preference cards or second preference how-to-vote cards which have been lodged with the Electoral Commissioner at least seven days before election day are allowed to be distributed in the vicinity of a polling place on polling day.

That recommendation is one which establishes a rule for which there is a penalty that applies by an offence being created, if it is breached, that how-to-vote cards may only be distributed during the election period if they are substantially the same as a card that is submitted to the Electoral Commissioner for inclusion in the polling booth posters with some time requirements, namely, they have to be four days after the close of nominations or lodged with the commissioner no later than two days before the polling day.

I think it is important to note here that this is in no way restricting or interfering with someone's right to vote. It is only that, if someone else wishes to publish a how-to-vote card, it fits in with some regulatory arrangements. Therefore, the introduction of a regulatory regime under a registration procedure ought to be understood that this is not something that is compulsory, because people do not have to issue or publish how-to-vote cards, but if they do they have to accept a set number of rules.

The difference between what is proposed in this bill and what applies in New South Wales and Victoria is that in this bill the criteria for rejecting cards are specified in the regulations rather than in the act. There are pros and cons in relation to that argument, and I will make some comment about that shortly. I think the important aspect to note here is that the introduction of the regulatory process, the highlighting of the need for this legislation, is sadly, in my view, a direct result of the misconduct—the very low standard of conduct—of the Australian Labor Party, and they should be appropriately embarrassed that there is a need for the introduction of this new regime.

I turn now to postal vote applications. Members would be aware that not everyone who is eligible to vote is available to vote or has the physical capacity to attend to register a personal vote on election days. Sometimes that is because they have a pre-existing engagement or activity which results in their not physically being either in the state or in the country or they do not have access to an interstate facility or, in some more limited areas, overseas facilities, such as embassies or the like, and they simply cannot cast a personal vote.

Other circumstances are where the elector, through some ill-health issue or accident, is incapacitated in some way and cannot physically attend or, indeed, to do so would be painful, inconvenient, costly or the like. Clearly, we have historically ensured, under our electoral rules, that eligible electors do have the capacity to cast a vote through a postal system. I think that is an important part of our democracy that we ensure that people who might be aged, infirm or in some way incapacitated, or who are physically unable to attend a polling booth, still have the opportunity to cast their vote, and this the way they do it.

The Electoral Act 1985 allows political parties, in this process, to distribute postal vote applications. The way this works is that an elector is able to contact a political party and say to them, 'I'm going to be away. Would you please send me a postal vote application.' It is a bit like the political party is really an agency that is available to distribute that postal vote application.

The process is that the political party provides the application to them, and that person then goes through all the rigours of casting their legitimate vote and that is registered with the Electoral Commissioner and processed in the ordinary way for allocation to the seat or the franchise in the upper house, whichever applies (usually both), and that has worked pretty well. The political party which takes that up has an opportunity to advise that prospective voter of what their preference would be, if the prospective voter is interested in supporting them, by providing them with a how-to-vote card in the electorate in which they will be casting their vote so they will be able to be assisted in that way.

If members of the public who are prospective electors are also members of a political party or favour a political party, that is what they want to know—who your preselected or nominated candidate is in a certain area. 'We would like to meet them, find out their policies, vote for them. Please send us this material, including how to vote.'

That has been an important aid, I think, for both electors and, indeed, the Electoral Commissioner in the past. This bill, however, proposes that political parties will be excluded from having the capacity to assist in this distribution role; that is, they are going to be chopped out of that role and the Electoral Commissioner's office will have the exclusive monopoly on this and responsibility as the sole distributor for such applications.

The way that the bill is drafted says that we are not going to exclude though political parties from being able to know who has applied for a postal vote application in an election campaign, so a political party or a candidate can go through a process by which they can be provided with the details of the postal vote. The argument is that that is to ensure they are able to continue to provide campaign material to those who have submitted a postal vote. My understanding is that the principle behind that is we will take control, but we will let you know who you can write to or correspond with because they will probably be voting early and, therefore, you might wish to approach them with some information to submit your pitch, I suppose, as to why they should be voting for you as a candidate or for the political party in a Legislative Council team.

There have been some inconsistencies as to how the bill is expressed on this postal voting role, or the distribution role for postal vote applications, pointed out by Jenni Newton-Farrelly, who has, as members would know, been very active in providing services from our library to members of this house and, indeed, the other place as well and I thank her for that. Her concerns relate to the apparent inconsistency in the drafting and she suggests that there should be amendments to make it clear that the commission can give the parties the name and address, including postal address, of all people who are issued with a postal vote at a given election so that the party can send the voting material to those people, so she has added some advice as to the clarity of drafting.

The point I would like to make here is that, from the Liberal Party of Australia's point of view, if there has been some inappropriate behaviour or improper conduct by other persons or other political parties, we do not think that we should have to suffer, I suppose, the repercussions of others. As a party we would like to continue to undertake the responsible role that we have had in the past of being involved in the distribution and we should be able to continue to conduct ourselves in the exemplary fashion in which we have in the past.

If there is to be some process or regulation to ensure that political parties do undertake their role responsibly, for example, to make sure that there is some process protecting against an elector contacting a political party and not being given an application form or, more likely, not being given a postal application form quickly enough to ensure that they are able to cast a vote in time, then so be it.

We are of the view that amendments to this bill should be included, firstly to allow political parties, other than the electoral commission, which is political parties, to do the distributing, subject to content and process requirements that can be done by regulation, and we are mindful of the fact that that should include clearly indicating which entity is providing the application and which entity holds the return address for the application. Full and clear disclosure on the material, no problem. We are happy to have a regulatory resume to go with that. The Liberal Party has, we say, undertaken this role responsibly in the past and we would like to have the continued opportunity to do so in the future.

We would also agree that it is reasonable to make clear that parties can receive the name and address, including the postal address, of all people who are issued with a postal vote at a given election (and that takes up the point that Jenni Newton-Farrelly has made crystal clear) and further to extend the disclosure requirements on authorisations so that they apply to third party organisations in similar form to those placed on parties and individual unendorsed candidates.

That relates primarily to material which is published on how-to-vote cards and other advertising material, so it has a broader effect, but we are keen again not to ever allow a situation where endorsements, or the lack of detail on endorsement, means that the recipient of that material is completely in the dark as to who the real author is of the documents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can't imagine—or I am certainly not privy to any situation where you would have ever been party to anything so mischievous as that, but both of us have been here long enough to have observed situations where it has occurred, and we think it is important that there be full disclosure and that those authorisations do not just have some apparent anonymous source and are clearly not being authorised by a person as an individual but on behalf of a political party.

Quite frankly, if somebody does provide authorisation to a piece of material, for and on behalf of a political movement or political party, then for goodness sake be not just honest enough to disclose it, but be proud of it! I find it bizarre to think that we are even having to debate this sort of issue, because if you are convinced that a certain political party or a movement or a particular push for an activity is meritorious, and you want to give them your support and you want to put your name to their charter, then, for goodness sake, stand up and be counted, be proud of it and be prepared to take it on the chin if you get some criticism back. But, in any event, that is something that is important for the Liberal Party. We have noted firsthand how mischievous others have been in the abuse of that in the past and we would seek to extend that disclosure requirement.

There are two other matters I wish to refer to, and there are a number of reforms that I referred to earlier, some of which are procedural and I will not be dwelling on those. The other major area of reform here is the internet authorisation. This is to introduce into the bill a requirement to identify a person responsible for political content in published material, which reverses a 2009 amendment so the provision no longer applies to material published or broadcast on the internet.

This whole process now is to be effected by a repeal of a subsection in the act that obliges the publisher of a journal to record the name and address of, and publish the name and postcode of, a person who takes responsibility for a letter, article or other material published in the journal. The exemption that existed prior to 2009 amendments that allows the publisher or another person to take responsibility for all electoral material published during an election period is to be reinstated into the act. This is a matter which the former attorney-general and I and others were in the public media space talking about prior to the election, and which we see as necessary to tidy up.

The other aspect which I wanted to briefly mention was that amendment No. 7—I think, but in any event, the number is not that relevant—provides that the deputy commissioner may be appointed for up to eight years with a term of appointment expiring one year after a scheduled general election. The timing aspect, and the importance of being available, all of those things are clear in the inquiry, and we think that it is necessary to ensure that we have some changes of those periods of office and conditions but we need to tidy it up in that way.

On behalf of the opposition, I place on record my appreciation to the select committee of inquiry members. I acknowledged earlier the hard work that they had done. These are not easy issues to address. Some times it is the tawdry behaviour of candidates or political parties in election campaigns which brings about the necessity to bring about some of these reforms. I am proud to say that in the time that I have been in the parliament I have not at all been embarrassed by the Liberal Party of Australia's conduct of elections. That is not to say that our party would be without sin in relation to conduct. There may have been other times when I have not been in the parliament when there could be criticism raised.

I am a proud member of the Liberal Party of Australia not only for what we stand for but to ensure that the conduct of political parties is such that it attracts respect, that it maintains and enthuses interest of members of the public and that it reassures the voters out there that there is strong and healthy debate. Political parties play a very important role in the education of and opportunity for development of candidate's skills and opportunities to be represented in the department.

I am very proud of what the Liberal Party of Australia does to support others, young and old, of all shapes and sizes and colours coming into leadership and parliamentary office, and I place on the record my appreciation to our political party for that.

On this occasion, I can confidently stand here and say that to the best of my knowledge in those elections, and particularly the focus on the 2010 election, we might have lost the right to form government, but we conducted ourselves in a proper manner which deserves to ensure that we continue to gain the respect we richly deserve.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:41): I would like to make a few comments. I will not go into the technical details the deputy leader so eloquently covered in her speech, but I want to remind the house just how outraged the public were when they found out about the acts of treachery, you could argue, against the voters in some key marginal seats by the Labor Party at the last election. This occurred mainly in the marginal seat of Mawson held by Leon Bignell, who has now been rewarded for his treachery against the people of South Australia with a ministry just last month.

Grace Portolesi, the member for Hartley, again, has been rewarded for her treachery against the people of Hartley for using these how-to-vote cards with, first, being promoted way beyond her ability to be education minister and then recently demoted back to a ministry which the Labor Party has formed, and is using to train up new ministers, as the sixth training minister in seven years.

If we look at previous ministers, they have all started as training ministers and moved on to other areas—people like Jane Lomax-Smith and the finance minister, Michael O'Brien, who was a training minister, as was the member for Colton before he moved on to other areas and before he eventually got the sack.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes, my point of order is: whatever do the member's comments have to do with this bill?

Mr PISONI: This bill is about the integrity of the system.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to the member and make sure that it is relevant.

Mr PISONI: This bill is about the integrity of the Labor Party, and we are here debating this bill today because the Labor Party could not trust itself not to do it again so it had to change the law. It had to change the law, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Point of order, sir. My point of order is that the member is absolutely rambling and not addressing the substance of the bill. I ask that he come back to addressing the substance of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to what the member says, and he must make sure he confines himself to the bill before him.

Mr PISONI: I am referring specifically to clause 22 of the bill, special provisions relating to how-to-vote cards, because we know that that was inserted into the bill because of the behaviour of the member for Mawson, the member for Hartley and the member for Light, who are all now sitting in the Weatherill ministry.

What is even more extraordinary about the actions of the member for Hartley in stealing these Family First votes is go to her Wikipedia site and she will boast that she is so proud that she was elected in 2006 without the need for Family First preferences because of the hatred she has for the Family First party and yet—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr PISONI: And yet—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for Unley. The member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I would suggest, sir, that the member is making statements that I think would be defamatory outside, and I think they are highly inappropriate and improper for this chamber. I would ask that he refrain from making such statements and come back to the substance of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to ensure that he is speaking to the substance of the bill.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I invite all members to go on Wikipedia now, unless some Labor staffer changes it before you get there, and you will see that she was proud in 2006 not to accept Family First preferences. If you go back to the media at the time, there was a lot of anger amongst political commentators and journalists about what the Labor Party had done in order to so-called 'sandbag' their most marginal seats.

The political analyst Dr Haydon Manning from Flinders University said the cards were, at worst, 'dirty' and 'sneaky', and at best, confusing Family First voters, deliberately of course. The article written by Brad Crouch covering the election was most damning for his comments about the member for Mawson, Mr Leon Bignell:

A card distributed in Mawson was headed 'Put your FAMILY FIRST' above a list of candidates showing the Labor candidate Leon Bignell with a 2 beside his name.

Below the list of candidates are the words: 'Preference someone who shares your values, preference Labor.'

Well, I do not think there would be many Family First voters that would support cheating in an election campaign. The article continues:

Among those handing out dodgy how to vote cards in Mawson was Mr Bignell's girlfriend—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Sorry; point of order, and I am actually going to ask the member for Finniss—

An honourable member: That's Finniss.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes, because it was the member for Finniss who was interjecting.

Mr Pengilly: But you've got to give a number.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.C. FOX: I seek your direction here on which number this would be. I know there is one. I believe that one may not refer to matters that are before the court. Is that correct in this instance?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: It is. Well, unfortunately, that is actually what—and I do not think that the member for Unley is doing this on purpose or maliciously or any of those things—

An honourable member: Yes, he is.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: No, I actually don't think—well, far be it from me to defend him. That matter is currently before the courts, I understand, and I would just like to make that clear. I do not know what the point of order is. I am happy to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to rule on that first. The advice that I have received is that the matter is before the courts and we should not be going into that level of detail.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. I am not embarking on any motion to dissent from your ruling. The parliament has, as a matter of practice, recognised the separation of powers and the responsibility independently of the courts and, indeed, of the executive. That is something which is to be commended, because the separation of powers is an important doctrine. Therefore, to make any comment in relation to matters that are before the courts—that is sub judicewhich has been referred to—is something that is particularly important in recognising—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order. Under what standing order is this member entitled to make a speech about the ruling? If she wishes to dissent from your ruling, she may do so. She cannot make a speech without having some standing order to allow it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you have a standing order, or is it a point of clarification?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am seeking a point of clarification. I thought I had made that clear in the initial thing.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: She is not asking a question: she is making a speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: In your statement, in suggesting that the parliament should not go somewhere, when a matter is before the court, I seek a point of clarification as to whether you were saying in any court action at all what can be said or what is too far, whether it is a criminal matter or a civil matter, because I would certainly be putting to you that—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: That is your question. You are not allowed to make a speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Excuse me, on no point of order that's been put, that is why I am seeking clarification, as to the extent of whether that is a direction that there can be no statement at all, in which case I may wish to put a certain motion to you. If it is simply to say we respect the Independents and therefore be careful about what you might say because we do not want to prejudice the operations of the courts, then we would, of course, respect the caution and advice that you might present to us. So, I would seek whether that is a ruling that we shall not speak at all or what you would mean by what is too far and in what jurisdiction.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling that I have given in regard to the member for Unley is really in respect to what influence that might have on the courts and whether it would impair their judgement. I am not saying you can not make any comments at all, but I am referring to the level of influence or whether you would impair the courts, so I would ask you to take that into consideration as you are making your contribution.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Family First’s official second preference in the seat of Mawson was for the Liberal candidate, that was what they were instructing or advising their supporters to vote.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I understand that this matter, as you have just mentioned, and as confirmed by the gentleman here, is sub judice and, as a result, the particular events, as they did or did not occur that the member for Unley is talking about—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.C. FOX: —and, as I understand from your ruling, we were not going to discuss that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, in so far as the influence and what impairment you would have on the court and, of course, we have to also be careful of reflecting on members.

Mr PISONI: I can understand why the Labor Party is embarrassed about this whole situation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it is not a matter of embarrassment.

Mr PISONI: Absolute fraud on the people of South Australia. I can understand why they are embarrassed and I can understand why it is that they have to change the law because they can't trust themselves not to do it again. I can understand that. There is no doubt it was well reported throughout the media and witnesses have come forward saying that Sandra De Poi was spotted handing out the how to vote cards at the Hackham West community centre on election day, and when she was approached she declined to make comments before leaving and after initially confirming—

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, please, member for Unley. We have another point of order.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The point of order, once again going back to the issue of it being before the courts: I think that the reference you are making to whether a certain person did or did not, you are deciding on the basis of whatever information it is you have from the media, wherever it may be, that a certain thing occurred. Now, I believe that the lady in question says that it did not and that that is the very matter which forms the basis of the civil matter that we are talking about. So for the member for Unley to make an assumption that something did occur when, in fact, the very nature of that occurrence is being questioned in the courts is not an assumption I think is proper or right to make in this place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order and I would ask the member to return to his speech and take into account what we have already ruled on.

Mr PISONI: Of course, I am only talking about what is being asserted in the public arena already. Of course, the ALP State Secretary, Michael Brown, confirmed the cards had been handed out in a number of seats and, as we spoke earlier, we spoke about those seats. The members of three of those seats have now been rewarded by Mr Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia, with ministerial positions, earning salaries in excess of $270,000 a year.

So, one must ask whether the $5,000 penalty that is in the bill is enough to deter this offence from happening again from the Labor Party, breaking the law, knowing full well that it is simply a $5,000 fine. Well, that is not a bad investment for a ministerial salary, I have to say. So, it will be interesting to see just how the Labor Party approaches the next election.

What is interesting is that Mr Brown, the state secretary of the Labor Party at the time, said, 'The material complies with the act and I'm not concerned about the repercussions.' He is not concerned about the damage that it does to South Australian communities or the damage it does to people's views of politicians in South Australia. What an outrageous comment.

It is win at any cost for the South Australian Labor Party, and South Australians need to remember that at the next election. Regardless of what they promise, regardless of what they tell you at election time, expect something different after the election. It came straight out of the state director's mouth: 'I am not concerned about any repercussions from the actions of the Labor Party in order to hang on to those key marginal seats and hang on to government.'

Although Lindsay Simmons in the seat of Morialta was slaughtered by a very good candidate (the new member for Morialta, John Gardner), she was, of course, rewarded with a plum board position in the training area that paid about $30,000 a year for the work she did with the South Australian Labor Party.

I will not hold the house up much longer, but I would like to refer to a comment made by Geoff Roach in The Advertiser, who was again reporting on the poor example of politics here in South Australia. 'Our slippery politicians master the art of the very greasy poll' is the story's headline. He finishes off with a personal comment about the member for Mawson, Mr Leon Bignell:

Satire aside, I have to express my public regret that someone I thought I knew well—member for Mawson, Leon Bignell—sanctioned the how-to-vote card ruse and defended it in the aftermath. And in the estimation of many voters, it was wrong that his girlfriend—Sandra De Poi who is an $80,000 Labor appointed member of the WorkCover board—helped distribute the dodgy cards wearing a fake Family First T-shirt.

Biggles, as he was known as a journalist, always seemed to be not only an entertaining and astute fellow but an honourable one. Sadly, after Saturday—

meaning the election, of course—

I'm no longer sure that's the case.

I am sure that that is exactly what the people of Mawson know and understand about Mr Bignell today.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:57): In a similar vein but not so extended, I would like to also support the bill. However, I indicate that I also find it unfortunate that it has become necessary to put some of these things into place because of the actions taken by some candidates from the Labor Party at the last election, first and foremost, of course, the member for Mawson, Mr Bignell. I just found it absolutely incredulous at the time that anyone could stoop to such a low act.

I think what happened in the seat of Mawson, as alluded to by the member for Unley and some others, cast a slur on all members of parliament and all political parties. To run around and try to pretend that you are selling another party and getting them to vote for you is as about as low as a snake's guts, quite frankly. It was disgraceful. It is well and truly remembered down there and it is remembered by Family First particularly. When the Labor Party wants to go running around getting preferences at the next election, Family First will remember that, I am sure. I do not speak for Family First, obviously, but they are pretty incensed by it.

Traditionally, the colour of the Labor Party is red, sir, as you well know, and the Liberal Party's colour is blue. Mr Bignell is not content to do what happened on election day, he also has the big sign at his office in all blue with 'Mr Bignell' in white letters. It is just ridiculous—

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: They don't like it, do they? They really don't like it when they get the truth. They really don't like it, so—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Give him back his blue.

Mr PENGILLY: I seek the protection of the Chair from this vicious attack from the very red-faced member for Elder.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think he has even warmed up.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: The Liberal Party supports the bill. It is highly likely that in this place, or another, there will be amendments put to the bill and it might suit to make it a better bill. I hope that they get—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. I cannot help noticing that the member for Finniss has some of our red on his tie.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is wearing it proudly.

Mr PENGILLY: It is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association tie, Patrick.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to seek leave to continue your remarks, member for Finniss?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. I just seek to clarify this because there is a prohibition on any reflection on Her Majesty or the Governor or places of other parliament and I would hope to ensure that whoever of those might be reading our powerful submissions in this debate that they would not be in any way offended by the reflection on the member's tie.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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