Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Electoral Act ELECTORAL ACT The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council ELECTORAL ACT The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Attorney-General, a question about the Electoral Act. Leave granted. The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: On Friday 13 February, the public officer of the Australian Democrats received a request from the Electoral Commissioner to provide details of membership numbers by Friday 20 February. The public officer provided a statutory declaration to the Electoral Commissioner by Monday 16 February. Today, the Attorney-General introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act into the lower house. That bill has a new clause, section 43A, annual returns and other inquiries. Clause 4 of that new section reads: The Electoral Commissioner may, at any time, by notice in writing, require a registered officer of a registered political party to provide such information as is specified in the notice for the purpose of determining whether the party is still eligible to be registered under this part. I think that is a very sensible clause and I will have no problem supporting it when it comes to this council. However, there is no such clause in the current act which gives rise to some interesting questions. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Did the Electoral Commissioner have the power to request information about membership from the public officer of the Australian Democrats on 13 February 2009? 2.	Did the Attorney-General initiate the request for information about the membership of the Australian Democrats? 3.	Will the minister explain how the Attorney-General— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: —the first law officer of the state, could have exceeded his authority in this way or have allowed the Electoral Commissioner to exceed her authority under the Electoral Act? 4.	Given the range of other important laws for which the Attorney-General is responsible, what steps will the government take to ensure that he is not exceeding his authority in those areas? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:08): The first law officer of this state has an obligation to ensure that the law is upheld. The law in relation to the filling of casual vacancies for members that are members of parties contains certain provisions and, of course, there are provisions in relation to what is a registered party and that, in turn, relates to the number of members of that party. If the Electoral Commissioner or the Attorney-General are seeking to get information as to the provisions of the constitution or of the Electoral Act, as they relate to casual vacancies, then I would have thought that was not only within the purview of their responsibilities but they would be derelict in their duty if they were not ensuring that the provisions of the act were upheld. I am really not sure what point the honourable member is trying to make. Is he saying that the Attorney-General should ignore the provisions? There certainly has been some public comment as to whether the Democrats did have sufficient members at the time to be a political party. Is the honourable member really suggesting that the Attorney-General should ignore those accusations? This is incredible hypocrisy from members opposite. They really do not understand the very basics of integrity; they just do not get it. Fancy asking the question: should the Attorney-General, as first law officer, ensure that the law is upheld? That was, essentially, the question.