ELECTORAL (FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Prior to the break and the adjournment, I was answering a question put to me by the member for Mount Gambier in the debate on my amendment. I will now, if the Chair is happy, continue answering that question. The member for Mount Gambier has raised an interesting point that has not quite been dealt with in enough detail in the bill, although the Attorney and I are pretty clear that we had it in one draft but, for some reason, it has dropped out.

There are significant complexities that arise from a candidate becoming an Independent candidate, in one way or another, within two years from the polling date and especially within the capped expenditure period. For clarity, to respond to the original question, section 130Z(2)(a) states that:

(2) A certificate under subsection (1) must be lodged with the Electoral Commission by the agent of the relevant party, candidate or group, in accordance with any requirements of the Electoral Commissioner—

(a) in the case of a certificate lodged by the agent of a candidate or group not endorsed by a party [Independent]—on or before 5 pm on the day on which the capped expenditure period commences in relation to the candidate or group for the election.

So, that means, if you announce you will become a candidate, and you are not already an MP, six weeks out from the election, for example, that would be the day on which the capped expenditure period would begin. So, to enter the public funding arrangements, you would need to lodge that certificate by 5pm with the commissioner on that day. We think that is reasonable. Given you are making a conscious decision to stand, you would have already planned on that question. However, this raises other points that would be addressed by amendments between the houses, and we will make sure the member for Mount Gambier is given the amendments prior.

If a candidate becomes an Independent within the two years, in a situation where they were previously a member of a political party—so this includes candidates who become disendorsed as well as choosing to leave the party—what should be their arrangements? The situation should continue for the candidates as it was, as the candidate previously had an arrangement with the party that it either opted in or not opted in to the scheme.

The newly Independent candidate would then have to change their position with the commissioner within 24 hours of being no longer endorsed as a candidate. So, if you were an MP belonging to a party and suddenly you do not belong to that party for some reason, by your choice or the party's choice, then you are stuck with the decision of the party about whether or not you are in public funding unless you change it within 24 hours with the commissioner; so, again, that candidate gets the choice. If no change is made, the previous arrangement would remain.

The complexity increases if this occurs during the capped expenditure period, which is from 1 July through. The agent of the party should have 48 hours to submit to the commissioner a report on the candidate expenditure already incurred on behalf of what was previously a party member candidate. The commissioner must check and accept this return. The commissioner will be able to say, 'Well, I think you're trying to load up the expenditure. I'll accept that one, not this one.' The commissioner will be the independent umpire. The already used expenditure should follow the newly Independent candidate and be removed from their cap and should be required to form part of their expenditure for the purposes of the cap.

Exactly how that operates will be a matter for drafting, but the intention is clear: that candidate will not be able to have two bites at the expenditure biscuit, but the independent umpire will be the Electoral Commissioner on that matter; so no party will control it. If the previous party tries to load up and fake the expenditure of that candidate, the Electoral Commissioner can make a judgement about that and make a ruling that he or she is going to accept X amount of the expenditure and allocate the rest to the newly Independent candidate; so there is protection for the Independent candidate. So that explains that. We will have that drafted between the houses. We will make sure the member for Mount Gambier sees the amendment, and we will answer further questions if they arise from the drafting.

Mr PEGLER: Where we said that if somebody is an Independent and eight weeks out from the election they decide they are going to stand, they announce it that morning, I would have thought that it should be by 5pm the next day. What happens if they announce it on a Sunday or a Saturday, or something like that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can answer the last bit. I think, under the Acts Interpretation Act, the day would be interpreted as next business day; so that is fine. Can I just say that, having listened carefully to what the member for Davenport had to say, I find it impossible to disagree with a word. We are in agreement about the matters that he explained. Like the member for Davenport, I also make the offer to the member for Mount Gambier. Between the houses, as far as I am concerned, we are both more than happy to keep the conversation going.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reason 24 hours is picked is that an Independent candidate, for instance, might want to announce their candidature at a big public meeting at 7 o'clock that night in some town hall; so putting an 'o'clock—5 o'clock—becomes an issue, but 24 hours caters for all circumstances.

Mr PEGLER: I would just like to put on record thanks to both the member for Davenport and the Attorney for looking into this matter.

The CHAIR: Just before I put this to a vote, can I draw to your attention to the fact that I have been advised of a typographical error. It is on the second last line of the amendment, 'in any other case—is a member of Parliament' and there is a semicolon and then 'and'. I have been advised that the semicolon should not be there; it should be a comma, and the 'and' should be deleted.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [I Evans–2]—

Page 15, lines 4 to 25 [clause 4, inserted section 130Q]—Delete inserted section 130Q

Amendment No. 3 is consequential, so I do not need to speak to it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [I Evans–2]—

Page 15, lines 28 to 35 [clause 4, inserted section 130R(1) and (2)]—Delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) A payment under this Division will not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a candidate unless—

(a) the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of the candidate is at least 4% of the total primary vote; or

(b) the candidate is elected.

(2) A payment under this Division will not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a group unless—

(a) the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of the group is at least 4% of the total primary vote; or

(b) a member of the group is elected.

Amendment No. 4 simply implements the scheme I talked about earlier, where if a member of parliament receives less than the 4 per cent threshold but is elected, they are eligible to public funding to the level of their primary vote.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [I Evans–2]—

Page 21, after line 10 [clause 4, inserted subsection 130Z(2)]—Before paragraph (a) insert:

(aa) in the case of a certificate lodged by the agent of—

(i) a candidate who—

(A) is not endorsed by a party; and

(B) is a member of Parliament; or

(ii) a group—

(A) that is not endorsed by a party; and

(B) a member of which is a member of Parliament,

at least 24 months before polling day for the election; or

Amendment No. 5 simply introduces the scheme that where you are a sitting member of parliament but not a member of a party you have to nominate to the Electoral Commissioner at the same time as the political parties that you are going to accept or reject public funding, which is two years out. The other circumstances the member for Mount Gambier outlined flow if it is closer than two years. At the two-year mark, if you are an Independent, you should have to nominate at the same time as the other members of parliament. That is what this amendment does.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [I Evans–2]—

Page 21, line 12 [clause 4, inserted subsection 130Z(2)(a)]—After 'party' insert:

(other than a candidate or group referred to in paragraph (aa))

Amendment No. 6 is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: For the clarity of the committee, I have no other amendments or wish to speak to any other matter until schedule 1.

Clause 5 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [I Evans–2]—

Schedule 1, page 48, line 33 to page 49 line 23—Delete the Schedule

This amendment deletes schedule 1 and is consequential to the amendments we have previously moved.

Schedule negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:53): Before I move the third reading, I thank again the people I have mentioned. I also need to mention Mr Thompson, who has done an excellent job in relation to this and been of great assistance, and also parliamentary counsel, who as usual have done a fantastic job in interpreting the somewhat cloudy thoughts on occasions and giving them some structure. I did not want it to pass without those acknowledgements and sincere thanks. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:53): I simply want to thank, as the Attorney has, parliamentary counsel and others. Parliamentary counsel put up with a lot of discussion and very long hours about matters. They probably did not have a great understanding of the internal workings of political parties until they sat through a lot of meetings. We enjoyed their input and we thank them for what was a complicated piece of drafting.

Bill read a third time and passed.