ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2009. Page 2767.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:45): This bill to amend the Electoral Act contains a number of technical amendments which have been recommended by electoral commissioners in their reports over the years, and many are uncontroversial. However, mixed in with these technical or procedural amendments are a number of significant alterations to the law relating to elections. These amendments have serious political ramifications and appear to have been crafted with the object of advantaging the Australian Labor Party—sometimes subtly, sometimes quite blatantly.

In one sense, this is a committee bill because it contains many small and subtle changes, the effect of which can be exposed and explained only during the committee stage. For example, I note that amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Winderlich cover some seven pages, and the Hon. Mr Parnell has some six pages of amendments on file. I look forward to the committee debate to examine fully some of the technical and procedural amendments proposed not only by those members but also by the government.

I will leave my questions relating to many of those smaller matters to the committee stage. However, some matters of policy should be dealt with at this second reading stage. The main topics that cover these policy areas may be described under the following headings: first, and most important, restrictions on electoral advertising; secondly, provisions relating to itinerant electors; and there are provisions relating to how-to-vote cards, to the electoral roll and to the registration of political parties that require comment at this stage.

As to restrictions on political advertising, this is a major element in the bill and, although they appear later in the bill, I will deal with them first. The important amendment proposed in the bill is to section 115 of the Electoral Act. It is the introduction of a prohibition of any electoral advertisement which is exhibited on a public road or in a public place. This is a major change, and it has undoubted political consequences.

Any restriction on political advertising or activity will prove to be an advantage to incumbent members and to an incumbent government. Quite apart from that fact, such restrictions are restrictions on the concept of free speech and ought be very closely examined. We on the Liberal side oppose these amendments in the strongest possible terms.

The history of controls under section 115 is important, and I will come to that matter shortly. However, I begin by describing the current law and the amendments proposed by this bill. Currently, sections 112, 113, 114 and 115 deal with electoral advertisements. 'Electoral advertisement' is defined to mean an advertisement that contains 'electoral matter'. This expression is defined as 'matter calculated to affect the result of an election'. It is important to note that these provisions apply to advertisements whenever they appear and are not limited to advertisements that appear during the 'election period'. This expression is defined as the period between the issue of the writ and 6pm on polling day.

Section 112 requires advertisements to carry the name and address of its author or authoriser, as well as the name and place of business of the printer. The current maximum penalties are $1,250 for a natural person who offends that section and $5,000 where the offender is a body corporate. In clause 38, the bill amends those provisions by extending them to electronic publications on the internet, which is fair enough. It also increases the maximum penalties to $5,000, in the case of an individual, or $10,000, for a body corporate. In other words, these fines are increased by 400 per cent in relation to individuals and 100 per cent in relation to companies.

We query why it is necessary to increase these penalties so substantially. In our experience, most failures to comply with these provisions are inadvertent and accidental. I believe that we should be encouraging people to participate in the political process. Fining them heavily for an inadvertent breach is hardly the way to encourage participation.

Section 113 currently deals with misleading advertising, the current penalties for which are $1,250 and $10,000 respectively. It is proposed to increase those to $5,000 and $25,000 respectively. Again, in our experience, most infringements of this provision are inadvertent or accidental, and the imposition of draconian penalties is hardly necessary, particularly when one considers that there is already a mechanism within the section that enables the Electoral Commissioner to require withdrawal of advertisements and the publication of retractions.

Section 114 requires newspapers to insert the word 'advertisement' in letters not smaller than 10 point type at the head of any electoral advertisement. The penalties are $750 and $2,500, and these are increased to $1,250 and $5,000 respectively. Again, the comments made earlier apply to these substantial increases in fines.

Section 115 is the most important section in the current context. It limits the size of electoral advertisements to one square metre and imposes a fine of $1,250. This fine increases to $5,000.

The maximum size of posters is not changed; however, the siting of them will change whereby, if the bill passes, they will only be allowed on private property. This amendment is clearly aimed at corflutes which are usually affixed to electricity poles. Corflutes are the most common form of electoral advertisement today. Typically, they carry a photograph of the candidate and the name of the party or other status—for example, Independent.

Political parties and candidates for office use corflutes extensively. Most of them are related to the particular candidate and are placed in particular electorates. Some might refer to the leader of a party but most, as I say, relate to the candidate in the particular area. Some, but not many, contain a political slogan or other message. Typically, these corflutes are 90 centimetres by 60 centimetres. In more recent times, there has been greater use of somewhat narrower corflutes which fit more comfortably on Stobie poles. They are a very important way in which candidates can put themselves before the electorate to gain some name recognition for themselves and/or their particular party.

It is appropriate to look at the history of restrictions on the size of electoral posters because it is this restriction which has, I believe, led to the extensive use of corflutes. Section 115 of the current act was originally section 155B and was introduced in 1955. At that stage, the then premier, Thomas Playford, said:

Proposed new section 155B restricts the size of electoral posters. A national security regulation for this purpose was introduced by the commonwealth during the war and afterwards incorporated in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It limits the size of electoral posters to 60 square inches.

That is, to 10 inches by six inches. Playford continued:

Under the commonwealth act this limitation applies not only to each individual poster but to any combination of electoral posters. In other words, it is an offence under the commonwealth act to post up two or more electoral posters in combination with each other if the total area of all of those posters is more than 60 square inches. It is difficult, however, to decide whether posters are in combination with each other and the government is informed that the language of the commonwealth act has caused some embarrassment to those responsible for enforcing this particular provision. In order to avoid this difficulty the present bill declares that every poster which is less than three feet from another poster shall be regarded as forming part of that poster.

Playford went on to state:

It may appear that 60 square inches is rather small but the commonwealth law on this point has been in force since 1946 without amendment and it is advantageous to have uniformity between the state and the commonwealth on this point.

That was said on 9 November 1955 at page 1497 of Hansard. Frank Walsh, for the Labor opposition at that stage, said:

Clause 14 limits the size of any poster or publication. This could result in a reduction of electioneering expenses. In my district government candidates have advertised extensively on the hoardings and I have done likewise with considerable success. I have a soft spot for this means of silent advertising and I would be the last to criticise those who undertake it.

The then member for Norwood (Don Dunstan) was a little more perceptive when he said:

I was amazed at the new section 155B until I realised its purpose. The section provides that electoral posters for an election in South Australia should be no larger in area than 60 square inches. The premier said the amendment would bring our electoral act, in that regard, into line with the commonwealth act.

When was the reference to 60 square inches placed in the commonwealth act? It was introduced in wartime to restrict the use of materials. It was a national security measure and it was inserted for no other purpose. What will be the result of restricting our electoral posters to 60 square inches? It must mean a quieter election because, when there are large hoardings and streamers on fences and windows of houses drawing attention to vital issues, people interest themselves in the election much more than they will if hoardings cannot exceed 60 square inches in area. Why does the government want a quiet election?

Dunstan then went on to say:

The purpose of this section 155B is to take people's minds from the electoral issues before them, particularly the composition of this house.

That was said on 16 November 1955 at page 1644. During the committee stage of the debate, Don Dunstan went further and stated:

I cannot see any point in restricting the size of electoral posters. Electorate expenditure is restricted, therefore, no-one can spend more on electoral publications than is allowed under the act. If a person chooses to spend the amount allowed on large hoardings instead of pamphlets, he should be allowed to do so.

Mr Dunstan later proposed an increase in the size, from 60 square inches to 120 square inches, and the government agreed to that amendment. Sir Frank Perry, in this council, made a highly perceptive comment. He said:

I think the idea is to eliminate posters altogether. A poster 10 by 6 inches is designed for distribution by handing out because it is useless posting up posters of that size. This is one of the main reasons why it was done. I should say that most reputable political organisations adhere to the 60 square inches…

This history is relevant, because it shows that this government is quite happy to leave in this act an outdated restriction on the size of advertisements but will implement a further restriction by limiting the locations at which such posters can be placed.

It is a clear example of this government's desire to close down the debate, to restrict opportunities for political engagement, and to limit the capacity of small parties and newcomers to participate. The reason is obvious. This government sees itself as riding high in the polls; the Attorney-General has said publicly, and somewhat arrogantly, that he regards the Australian Labor Party as the natural party in government in South Australia. Clearly, he wants to keep it that way.

We do not pretend that corflutes are popular with the public or with local councils; many regard corflutes as visual pollution. However, that is not really surprising, as many people are disdainful of the whole political process, and regard letters and brochures from aspirants to political office with annoyance and irritation. All the polling shows that they get heartily sick of electioneering. The way to overcome that cynicism is for us, as political parties and candidates, to engage the public and enthuse them. The government has chosen the easy way—namely, banning the most visible form of political activity—but the opposition does not believe that is the way to go.

I should remind the council that parliament has endorsed the use of roadside electioneering signs in recent years. There was a time when local councils had the power to ban signs by way of by-laws, and to my recollection at least one—Burnside council—did ban corflutes. However, this parliament, by enacting section 222 of the Local Government Act 1999, removed from councils the power to ban roadside signs in relation to state, federal and local government elections. There are some restrictions in relation to such signs—namely, they can be posted only after the issuing of the writ and they must be taken down immediately after the election—but the fact is that the Local Government Act authorises the use of roadside signs.

The Local Government Association has issued guidelines in relation to them, and councils do have policies. For example, I have in my hand the policy promulgated by Mitcham council in relation to election signs. They are sensible restrictions, including that the signs must not be placed on carriageways of roads, on dividing strips, traffic islands, or roundabouts, or within 50 metres of a signalised intersection or a pedestrian-activated crossing. They cannot be placed on the South-Eastern Freeway or the Southern Expressway (both of which are in the area of Mitcham), and they must not be placed within 6 metres of an intersection or junction, or any other location that may pose a hazard to pedestrians or road users. When posted on a pole they can only be between a height of 2 and 3 metres from the ground, with nothing above those signs—in fact, there is a prohibition against placing the signs any higher than 3 metres from the ground. Incidentally, I notice that part of Mitcham council's policy requires that council consent be obtained, but the fact is that section 226 of the Local Government Act 1999 actually prohibits councils from imposing conditions of that kind.

Finally, the government's proposal to ban electoral posters in public places is the most cynical exercise of all. This new provision will expire on 31 March 2014, after the 2014 election. Clearly the government, in its arrogance, believes it will win the 2010 election; but it may not be in such a comfortable position after 2014. It may no longer have the value of incumbency and it has decided, in its wisdom, to restrict the operation of this clause to that election—clearly so as to advantage itself. I should indicate that in another place the member for Mitchell moved that corflutes be limited to 200 per electorate, but the Labor majority ensured that that amendment was not passed.

In very brief conclusion, the opposition is strongly opposed to the restriction on electoral advertisements. They are already an important part of our political process. There are already in place adequate controls and regulations over them. Indeed, one might say there is actually over-regulation of electoral signs, but this is a politically motivated proposal to improve the prospects of the current government and should be opposed. It is an essential part of this package of measures.

I move next to the provisions relating to itinerant electors. In the second reading explanation, certain electors are referred to as 'homeless electors', thereby seeking to excite the sympathy that invariably attaches to homeless people and to tie the notion of these amendments to the Electoral Act with the governments' (both state and federal) emphasis on addressing homelessness.

This bill does not describe homeless electors but correctly refers to them as itinerant electors. This is a truer and more neutral description and actually explains the origin of this proposal. There are similar provisions in the commonwealth Electoral Act which were introduced on the grounds that, these days, many people, especially retirees, sell their home, buy a caravan and travel the country. Why should citizens who choose to adopt that lifestyle be denied the opportunity to cast a vote? In the past, they would have always been enrolled. They are voters, so why should they be denied the right to be enrolled? Accordingly, the commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to allow them to do so.

The commonwealth act has very important provisions which are absent in this bill. The commonwealth provision—section 96—provides that a person who is not eligible for enrolment on the basis that they have not been living in one particular place for one month may apply, and the electoral office shall cause the name of the applicant to be added to the roll. But which particular roll? The commonwealth provision states:

(a) for the subdivision for which the applicant had last had an entitlement to be enrolled;

(b) if the person has never had such an entitlement for a subdivision for which any of the applicant's next of kin is enrolled;

(c) if neither paragraph (a) or (b) applies for the subdivision in which the applicant was born, or if none of the foregoing apply, the subdivision to which the applicant has the closest connection.

That is an important hierarchy, because it prevents the sort of rorting that could occur if a homeless person could simply nominate the particular electorate in which they wish to be enrolled. However, that issue is simply not addressed in this bill. Rather bizarrely, the provisions of our bill are that the homeless person has to nominate a postal address within the particular electorate for which they wish to be enrolled. The matter is then left largely to the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner.

In a briefing provided to members, the Electoral Commissioner said that she would apply the hierarchy which applies in the commonwealth legislation, which I have just described. However, that is not satisfactory. The commissioner should be required to observe conditions laid down by the parliament rather than simply referring without statutory authority to the legislation of another state. Here, the Electoral Commissioner will cause the name of the itinerant elector to be added to the roll after taking into account (a) the address specified by the person as their postal address within the electorate and 'any other relevant factor'. That is too vague a concept. There is an inconsistency in the philosophy of this section, which requires on the one hand the commissioner to require the applicant to specify an address that may be taken to be that person's principal place of residence and then to say that the person is itinerant or homeless. If they have a principal place of residence which they can state to the Electoral Commissioner, they ought to be enrolled in that particular electorate.

It is appropriate to mention some of the background to these itinerant elector provisions. Other jurisdictions have them. They are extensively referred to in the most recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which was delivered in relation to the federal election held in 2007. That report was tabled in June this year and is available online.

It devotes a good deal of space to so-called homeless electors. It notes that in 2006 the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that there were some 105,000 homeless persons on census night, which is a very significant number. The rather important sounding Council for Homeless Persons is quoted as expressing the view that a further 18,000 'marginal residents in caravan parks' should be added to that 105,000 people.

In a paper entitled 'Counting the Homeless 2006 South Australia', published in June this year by the Australian Institute of Wealth, Health and Welfare, a paper which is also available online and which I commend to members, it states that in South Australia in 2006 there were some 7,962 homeless persons, of whom some 3,309 were under the age of 18 years. So, we in South Australia have some 4,653 persons who were classified as homeless at that time.

However, the definition of 'homeless' is a highly contentious one. There are three categories of homeless persons: primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness. Primary accords with the common assumption that homelessness is the same as rooflessness, which includes people living on the streets, sleeping in parks, squatting in derelict buildings, living in improvised dwellings, such as sheds, garages or cabins, using cars or railway carriages as temporary shelter, etc.

It also includes secondary homelessness: those who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another. On census night, it included people who were staying in emergency or transitional accommodation provided under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. The starting point for identifying this group is the census category of 'Hostels for homeless, night shelters and refuges'. It also includes people temporarily residing in other households because they have no accommodation of their own and they report 'no usual address' on their census form. Secondary homelessness also includes people staying in boarding houses on a short-term basis, which they define as '12 weeks or less'.

Tertiary homelessness is the third class. It refers to people who live in boarding houses on a medium or long-term basis, usually defined as 13 weeks or longer. They do not have the security of tenure provided by a lease. They are treated as homeless because their accommodation does not have the characteristics defined as the 'minimum community standard for housing'. There is argument whether or not persons who live in caravan parks should be included in the homeless categories.

I mention all of these matters to point out that homelessness is a relatively complex issue. It seems to me that what some people seem to be doing, the government particularly, is jumping on the homelessness bandwagon without any real expectation that there will be very many people who seek to enrol under these provisions. The federal report to which I earlier referred states that in Victoria, which has a substantially larger population than South Australia, some 700 people are enrolled under these provisions.

One of the points that ought to be noted is that many homeless people have concerns about personal safety issues that might be realised if they give their name and address to authorities such as the Electoral Commission. According to another body, the Public Interest Legal Clearing House, 32 per cent of homeless people have a connection with domestic violence or family dysfunction; 25 per cent of that organisation's clients are subject to unexecuted arrest warrants. Homeless Australia, another organisation, considers that homeless persons might be unwilling to attend polling places due to the risks associated with their being identified if they attend a polling place to vote.

Research undertaken by the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University, also referred to in the federal report, indicates that some 50 per cent of persons who identify as homeless had never voted or indicated that they ever intend to vote. The research noted that some of the impediments to engagement included the provisions of the act relating to enrolment, etc.; lack of access to polling places; fear of becoming the target of government agencies; faithlessness; a lack of belief in the political system; and fear of fines for failing to enrol or failing to vote when eligible.

So, there are all of these factors, which make it obvious that many people who are classified as homeless will not wish to avail themselves of these provisions. It is quite likely, given the fact that there is no necessary connection between the place of residence and the place of enrolment, that these provisions are open to abuse.

There may be some over-enthusiastic apparatchiks in certain political parties, especially the Labor Party, given the history in Queensland, who will see these provisions as an opportunity for rorting, especially in light of the absence of provisions and safeguards such as appear in the commonwealth act. I ask the minister to indicate why the commonwealth act provisions in this regard have not been followed.

I now mention a number of other matters that are not as significant as the two topics I have already addressed. First, I refer to the registration of political parties. The government first proposed that the current number of members be increased from 150 to 500. That was the provision in the bill as introduced, and justified by the Attorney-General as entirely appropriate, in line with other states and in line with population growth, etc.

However, the government changed its mind. The Attorney-General in another place, at page 2589 of Hansard, stated, 'owing to the enormous weight that the National Party carries in the coalition' the number was reduced by amendment to 200.

So, here we have this solemn bill that has come before the parliament. The existing legislation provides that the number of members eligible for a registered political party is 150. We are now going to increase it to 200. For what purpose? This shows the political nature of the whole of this legislation. It highlights the political opportunism of this bill.

No doubt, there are members of other parties who thought that the reduction to 200 was a fair enough figure, and I would expect that the smaller parties would have adopted that position, but the government did not bow to pressure from minor or smaller parties; it bowed to pressure from one particular party and one particular member with whom it has an alliance.

I ask the minister to place on the record the position of the government relating to the question of whether or not the same members can be relied upon to register more than one political party and, in particular, whether the same members can be relied upon in the registration of subsidiary political parties. It is well known here that the Labor Party has a subsidiary party called Country Labor. It is, of course, a sham party. It does not exist at all. It is simply a name to be placed on ballot papers or in political advertisements.

We know that the National Party is now seeking to register—I imagine it has already done so—a slogan as a political party in South Australia, hoping to capitalise on issues identified in the Western Australian election. I ask the minister to indicate what the government's attitude is to using the same members to support either registered political parties or divisions within parties.

This bill also seeks to prevent a registered political party using the name of a 'prominent public body.' This appears in clause 12 of the bill. This is, obviously, a transparent device to prevent, for example, those who are supporting the continuance of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, or the Save the Royal Adelaide Hospital Group, from actually registering as a political party. Once again, it is a restriction on political advertising and freedom of speech, and we oppose it.

There are amendments to the provisions relating to the electoral roll, the principal basis of which, according to the government, is to restrict the commercial misuse of information on the roll by limiting the capacity of persons to use the roll and by limiting its circulation. There was an amendment made in another place—once again, the government changing its position—to allow not only members of parliament to have access to the roll but to also allow candidates to have access to it.

There is a rather artlessly expressed provision in clause 5(5), which provides, 'If a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section', and that means either a member or a candidate, and that person uses the roll, or a copy of it, or information contained in it, for a purpose 'other than a state, federal or local government purpose' an offence is committed. It is actually I believe arguable whether having oneself elected to parliament is a state, federal or local government purpose, and in the committee stage I will be exploring whether or not that expression is appropriate.

There is an amendment to the Constitution Act in the schedule of this bill. Currently, section 82 of the Constitution Act requires the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to commence the process of redistribution within three months after every general election. This bill proposes that that be extended to 24 months. Whilst we agree that the period of three months was unduly restrictive because very often statistical and other information is not immediately available and the process of completing the electoral redistribution is distorted to some extent by the very short time frame, however, we will be exploring in the committee why the government has chosen 24 months as the time within which the commission must commence its important work.

There are provisions in this bill for compulsory enrolment. Currently there is no requirement to enrol for persons who become entitled to enrol in South Australia. There are provisions in the commonwealth legislation and most other states that actually require compulsory enrolment. However, there does seem to be a contradiction in the approach adopted by this government.

In his second reading the Attorney said that government believes that voting is an important civic duty. If it is an important civic duty, I would have thought there should be some obligation on the government, the Electoral Commission, the parties or all of us to encourage and educate people to enrol, to make them want to enrol, to make them understand their duty and to make them want to exercise it. To then make it compulsory to enrol is hardly consistent with the notion of an important civic duty.

All we get is the claim that the State Strategic Plan seeks to increase the proportion of eligible South Australians entitled to vote to better than the national average by 2014. I would ask the minister to indicate in response: what are the current figures in relation to the level of enrolment in this state; what measures has the government been taking to date to meet that objective of the strategic plan; and what progress has been made in relation to it?

There are restrictions also in relation to how-to-vote cards. For example, clause 40 of the bill seeks to prevent how-to-vote cards being issued by some third party, and questions arise as to why it should be that a third party or organisation should not be entitled to issue how-to-vote cards saying how that body believes that votes ought be cast.

This section, as now proposed, seems to allow the issue of a how-to-vote card which is inconsistent with a how-to-vote card that is actually registered for the purpose of the act. As members would know, under the existing legislation, candidates can register a how-to-vote card which is used in certain circumstances, but there seems to be no prohibition against such a candidate or his supporters issuing an inconsistent how-to-vote card and distributing that on election day, and I ask whether it is the government's view that that issue is covered in the existing legislation. In conclusion, I indicate once again that, whilst many of the minor technical amendments might be unobjectionable, they are actually put into a bill which contains provisions that simply could not be supported by the Liberal Party, and we strongly oppose them.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:36): When the government puts up changes to electoral laws you can be pretty certain there will be a strong element of self interest involved. Some of the changes proposed in this current series of amendments are, I believe, quite blatant in their attempt to advantage the big, old parties over the smaller parties and Independents. The government seems very keen to make it more difficult for parties to become registered and, once elections are called, they are determined to make it harder for small parties and Independents to get out their message, and there is really no other explanation for the proposed restrictions on public space electoral advertising.

The government knows this is one area where competition is fierce and where small budgets can make a big impact. They know that small parties cannot compete for TV or newspaper space, and now they want to outlaw the one area where the playing field is a little bit more level. The lens through which the Greens look at bills such as this involves some fundamental principles. The first test we apply is: will these measures improve our democracy? Secondly, will they improve the application of the principle of one vote, one value; and, thirdly, does the bill provide improved opportunities for citizens to participate in the political process?

In my view, the bill falls short on all those three tests. I should say that they are the same tests that will apply to the constitutional amendments, the referendum bill, when it comes before us. That is a particularly cynical exercise in undermining our democracy, using the process of making the more democratic of the two houses less relevant; however, more about that when it is before us.

In my second reading contribution, I want to address briefly what genuine democratic reform would look like. I have some amendments on file, with perhaps more to come. If the Greens were to amend electoral laws, the first thing they would do is start with the lower house of parliament and introduce a scheme for multimember electorates based on the Hare-Clark system, as used in Tasmania and the ACT. In the past, the member for Mitchell has introduced a bill for that model of voting in the lower house.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Leader of the Government asks when that was. It was October 2004. Currently, the structure of the lower house is designed to maintain the dominance of the old parties, and it is difficult for anyone else to break in. The Hare-Clark system I referred to provides for real proportionality so that more people find their vote effective in electing someone of their choice. I note that the Electoral Reform Society supports that model of voting.

The Greens also believe that it is important to give future generations more say in the political process. We believe that, on a voluntary basis, 16 and 17 year olds should be entitled to enrol and vote. Young people today are far more engaged with politics and community affairs generally. They have access to a wide and growing range of information, and their networking abilities and opportunities are beyond the understanding of many older generations.

We have plenty of debate in this place about young offenders, and members often call for them to be treated as adults. The Greens ask: why not let those young people who want to exercise their right of citizenship at the age of 16 or 17 do so? The bill could be further improved by allowing the electoral roll to close as late as possible during the election period.

It seems to me that, with modern computer technology, there is no reason for the roll to close weeks or even longer out from an election. It should be possible for people to enrol and vote up to five days or so before an election. The technology certainly exists for that to happen and for that information to go to all the polling booths in time for an election.

Reforms are also needed to the system of postal voting. The current system favours incumbency. Applications for a postal vote should go straight to the Electoral Commission and not be filtered through the offices of local members of parliament. Anything that favours incumbency is less democratic.

In relation to voting for the Legislative Council and group or ticket voting, we should ensure that those voting tickets are displayed in every polling booth and not just somewhere in the polling station. People have a right to know what it means to vote above the line, and the display of group voting tickets allows people to know exactly what it means if that is the way they choose to vote.

As we know, some 95 per cent of people choose to vote above the line because it is easier; however, the vast majority of them do not know where their vote ends up. Ideally, we would get rid of group voting tickets altogether and allow preferential voting above the line so that the voter determines where their preferences go, just as they currently do for lower house ballots.

One of the most important areas for reform is that of political donation, and I have spoken about this issue in this place on a number of occasions. The Greens believe that the Canadian model is well worth considering, and I understand that the opposition has also referred to that model in recent times.

We should look at limits on individual donations to parties or candidates, with limits set at a modest level so that we do not find vast sums of money from a very small support base going to parties, with their subsequently being beholden to the donors. So, we would limit donations to $1,000, and prohibit donations from corporations, unions and other organisations, and have continuous political disclosure, rather than the 'once a year' federal system we are currently stuck with.

The flip side of the coin of limiting individual political donations is public funding for elections. It has been said by the Premier and others that people do not want that, but it has occurred at the federal level for many years and has not been the subject of outrage in the community. In fact, I think people understand that it is a fairer system than one in which parties and candidates hold out their hands for large sums of money to corporations.

I think we can be a little bit more liberal in terms of the time period for registration of new parties; six months before an election is too long, and I think that two months is a more appropriate period of time.

One issue that the previous speaker canvassed at great length was the question of outdoor political advertising and this most curious provision that the Attorney has put into this bill effectively banning what we refer to as corflutes on Stobie poles. A better model is the one that the member for Mitchell in another place advocated, and that is to have some sensible limit on the number of posters. However, to a certain extent, we are at a loss to understand why any restriction at all is necessary.

I come back to what I said at the outset, that the government knows that that is an area where the small players can compete. It is a relatively cheap form of advertising. It does provide the opportunity, in the very brief election period, for people to get their message out. The alternative, which is what is currently in the government bill, is that we will find wealthier parties going along the main roads, boulevards and streets of our cities and our towns and they will be paying people to put a couple of star pickets in their front yard and advertise there. That is what happens interstate where they do not have public space advertising. You would basically be going up and down the street and offering people $20 or $50, especially if they are on a prime corner location, to put advertising in their yard.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I think you'd have to offer more than that!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas thinks that we are undervaluing some of these prime locations. The point is that any system that takes away the right of people to briefly advertise for free in the public realm favours parties with more money, and that is undemocratic. As an Independent, being able to use even the back of a cornflakes packet and a texta colour to make your case for election and to put that in the public realm is an important part of our democracy.

There are also provisions in this bill relating to access to the electoral roll. One thing that is important there is that we need to make sure that we do not favour incumbents and we do not wait until candidates have formally registered. If a person intends to be a candidate, that should be a sufficient barrier to cross in order to be able to obtain the electoral roll. Of course, what we then need to do is make sure that we have strong laws in place preventing abuse and, in particular, abuse for commercial purposes. I think that there is some scope for increasing those penalties.

Another amendment that I am keen to see to this bill is the one that came out of the experience in the Frome by-election, and that is an amendment I have referred to here before. Where an unnecessary by-election is held, I believe that the political party whose candidate has prematurely resigned should be responsible for paying the costs of the by-election and, if they choose not to do so, they should be ineligible to run a candidate in that election. I think it is very poor public policy for us to allow political parties to use the mechanism of by-elections as a form of succession planning. We know that the Liberals came a complete cropper when they tried to do that in the Frome by-election, but I think the principle is necessarily sound. If a person resigns through no good reason, other than that they are tired or that they have had enough, then I do not think the taxpayer should have to foot that bill.

There are also provisions in this bill that relate to the details that are included on the electoral roll. A lot has been said about the ability of members of parliament to send birthday cards to their constituents by having that information recorded. However, what we should be looking at is whether we could introduce an electoral version of the 'do not call register'. Many of us have signed up to avoid the evening mealtime routine of an Indian call centre selling us things that we do not want. Why not have a similar principle in place where constituents can protect their details, including protecting them from contact by their member of parliament?

In summary, the Greens believe that this bill is a fairly cynical attempt to entrench the already considerable advantage that the big parties enjoy. If this bill is the answer, then we have to ask ourselves: what was the question? I have no doubt that the question was not: how do we improve democracy in our state? If that was the question, then the answer would certainly have been very different to this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.