ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 September 2009. Page 3220.)

Clause 13.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 11, line 16 [clause 13, inserted section 43A(2)]—After 'must' insert:

include a statement (verified by the registered officer by statutory declaration) of the total number of members of the party as at the date on which the return is prepared and

The amendment to clause 13 would change the current section 43A(2) to read:

A return under subsection (1) must include a statement (verified by the registered officer by statutory declaration) of the total number of members of the party as at the date on which the return is prepared and be accompanied by any documents required under the regulations.

I am moving this because the number of members in certain parties has been the subject of strong interest—certainly at the beginning of the year and certainly by the Attorney-General Michael Atkinson.

As I responded at the time, parties do not reveal their numbers because none of us have the numbers that would be as flattering as we would like, but given that the Attorney-General has this burning itch to know the numbers—at least of my party—I think it is only fair that we make available the numbers of all parties to all South Australians. In that way, in the interests of transparency, any South Australian would be able to find out the number of members of each party.

This would have several benefits, other than idle or strange curiosity. It would encourage healthy competition between parties. No party would like to appear too small, particularly not parties that are seen as rivals, such as Labor and Liberal, or, arguably, the Greens and the Democrats.

It would show members of the community that, in fact, most parties do not have very large memberships at all. On the one hand, that would put the influence of parties into proportion while, on the other hand, it might encourage people to join in and exercise their influence, given that they can see that, in some cases, they might be a significant addition. It comes back to the mantra often used by this government: nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: That is right. It is a very good saying. I am very glad that it was introduced, probably by the Attorney-General. I intend to use it a lot: I do already, but I will use it more. In the interests of general transparency and in the interests of encouraging a healthy competition for memberships between parties—other elements of this bill have been about attempting to make parties more vibrant and a greater force in our political process—I urge all members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Amendments Nos 7 and 8 are part of a series, so I suggest that amendment No. 7 should be treated as a test amendment. Amendment No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Mr Winderlich amends new section 43A to require the annual return of a registered political party filed under subsection (1) to include a statement, verified by affidavit of the registered party's registered officer, of the total number of members of the party as at the date on which the return is prepared.

The government opposes this amendment. We cannot see the point. Provided that the registered officer satisfies the commissioner that the party has the requisite 200 members, or a qualifying member of parliament, which the officer must do under section 43A(1), that should be the end of the matter. The commissioner has no need to know the total number of members. The public—and I note that amendment No. 8 requires the commissioner to publish this information on a website—does not need to know, either. This will impose an unnecessary administrative burden on registered parties.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question for the minister on this clause. Proposed new section 43A(4) provides that the Electoral Commissioner may at any time, by notice in writing, require a registered officer of a registered political party to, in effect, prove that they are still eligible for registration.

What concerns me about that subsection is that if, for example, an attorney-general felt that a party was on the cusp of eligibility, there would be nothing to stop the attorney, on a weekly or monthly basis, contacting the Electoral Commissioner and urging him or her to give notices in writing to ensure that a political party has exactly the minimum number of members at any time. What assurance will the minister give that that type of conduct would not be allowed?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: For a start, the discretion is the Electoral Commissioner's who, as we all know, is appointed by the statutory committee of this parliament. The Electoral Commissioner has a very important function that is independent of government. The concept that an electoral commissioner would effectively abuse the position, which I think is what the honourable member is suggesting, is not something that I believe is likely. Of course, if it was done and it was disclosed, I think that the political system, if you like, would take care of that. However, I do not think that is likely to happen at all.

The commissioner has a number of discretionary powers under the act, but the real answer to the honourable member's question is that history shows that we have been very well served by our electoral commissioners for over a century or more and they do not abuse their discretionary powers.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will ask the question in a different way because I am keen to ensure that abuse would not occur. I accept the minister's response in relation to the independence of the Electoral Commissioner, but I would have thought that, as a matter of natural justice, if you like, if a member of the public raised a concern with the Electoral Commissioner at any time—say, at least six months after a last return had been lodged—and said, 'I don't think the Liberal Party is eligible any more'—or the Labor Party, or whoever—would the Electoral Commissioner be obliged in any way to write to the party and make it prove that it has members?

To put it another way, would a person who approached the Electoral Commissioner with such a request have any redress if the Electoral Commissioner refused to give that notice in writing to the political party?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I believe it is a discretionary power on the Electoral Commissioner. One would assume that before taking action the Electoral Commissioner would want to satisfy herself that there were reasonable grounds. We all have powers as public officials. If people come to us with accusations, we should at least make some attempt to satisfy ourselves as to whether or not they have some validity before we take action.

All of us here as members of parliament can raise issues under parliamentary privilege in this parliament, and most members of parliament do so with some discretion in terms of trying to make some attempt to find out whether there is a prima facie case to pursue. One would assume that a public official, such as the Electoral Commissioner, would do likewise. Of course, these powers must be discretionary as they are indeed in relation to a number of powers of the commissioner under this act.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Does the inclusion of new section 43A(4) in the amendment bill mean that, under the current Electoral Act, the Electoral Commissioner does not have the power to write to a political party and ask it to provide a statutory declaration of its membership numbers?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Section 45(1)(b) of the Electoral Act (which is the section on re-registration of a political party) provides:

(1) If the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied on reasonable grounds that—

(b) a political party so registered, not being a parliamentary party, has ceased to have at least 150 members; or...

the Electoral Commissioner may deregister the party.

That is the current provision. In the context of exercising that power, the presumption is that the commissioner would then write to the party seeking some validation of her suspicions. However, we must remember that the commissioner has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the party so registered has ceased to have effect. Clearly, that would suggest that the commissioner would write to satisfy herself that there were reasonable grounds for that belief. Section 45(2) provides:

(2) A political party may not be deregistered under this section unless the Electoral Commissioner has, by notice in writing, addressed to the registered officer of the party—

(a) informed the registered officer of his or her intention to deregister the party; and

(b) allowed the registered officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the party should not be deregistered.

So, there is that safeguard in there. They are the current powers under the act, and we are amending section 45 under clause 14 of this bill. So, there is some change to section 45(1)(b). The new clause would read (and I guess we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit here):

The Electoral Commissioner may deregister a party if—

(b) a political party so registered has ceased to have the required number of members (or, in the case of a parliamentary party, an appropriate member) to enable the party to continue as an eligible political party; or

So, effectively, the change is removing the 150 number.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I would have thought that, in addition to the comments made by the minister, new provision 43A(4), which provides, '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', is a satisfactory and reasonable mechanism, given the other requirement that the Electoral Commissioner must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is already in the legislation adequate protection for the matters that are being canvassed.

Whilst we quite understand and have sympathy for the Hon. Mr Winderlich in moving this amendment and we share his concerns about the unseemly interest of the Attorney-General earlier this year in the number of members of the Australian Democrats party, we do not believe that it is appropriate to require public disclosure of the number of members of a registered political party. That information has not had to be disclosed in the past, and we see no reason why this additional bureaucratic requirement should be imposed.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I have a question for the minister. I notice that the successive annual reports of the Electoral Commissioner seem to suggest that the number and identity of the register of political parties has been about the same over a number of years. I ask the minister to indicate to the committee whether or not there have been deregistrations undertaken by the commissioner rather than parties themselves seeking to be deregistered. If so, what has been the cause of deregistration at the initiation of the commissioner?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The deputy commissioner is here, and I will get that information. To the best of the deputy commissioner's knowledge, there has never been a deregistration under section 45 of the act, but under section 44, voluntary deregistration, I understand that Dignity for the Disabled may have sought voluntary deregistration.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: My question relates to proposed section 46B which requires, quite appropriately, in subsection (1) that the membership information—names and addresses of the electors who constitute the membership of a registered political party—is kept confidential. What steps is it proposed to take to ensure that that material is kept on a confidential basis?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the Electoral Commission will just keep the information secure in the way that it does with the electoral roll itself. Of course, there are certain people who, for various security and other reasons, have their names suppressed on the roll. The Electoral Commission handles those, and the expectation is that, just as they are able to successfully keep that information secure, so they would in the same manner be able to keep secure the names and addresses of members who make up the requirements for registration of a political party.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Proposed subsection (2) provides:

Subsection (1) does not prevent the Electoral Commissioner providing information to a prescribed person or body, or a person or body of a prescribed class...for purposes connected with the operation or administration of this act.

Can the minister indicate to whom it is envisaged the Electoral Commissioner might be able to pass on this information?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is envisaged that the prescription would probably relate to the Crown Solicitor or SAPOL, perhaps, and that that would operate in relation to getting advice on any potentially false declaration and membership numbers and the like. Essentially, that part of the bill is envisaged to cover that sort of eventuality. So, if there is any query in relation to the bona fides of the information provided, it could be passed on to the appropriate authority, such as SAPOL and/or the Crown Solicitor.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 12, lines 15 to 21 [clause 16, inserted subsection (3)]—Delete inserted subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) The date fixed for the close of the rolls must be not more than 5 days before the date for the polling.

This amendment goes to the critical question of when we close the roll of voters before each election. This is one of those situations where we need to balance the convenience of the Electoral Commissioner with democratic principles and, in particular, the principle that we should seek to enfranchise as many people as we can.

Members would recall that at the federal level we had the situation where once people became aware that the Prime Minister had gone to Government House it was too late for them to change their address, for example, or to remember to enrol for the first time.

The provision in the government's bill before us is that the close of the electoral roll will be 10 days after the issuing of the writs. So, it is not as bad as we had at the federal level where people were very much taken by surprise. However, I think we live in an age where technology does allow us to provide more latitude on the side of inclusion. So, my amendment proposes that the rolls be closed no more than five days before the date for polling.

The reason for that is that it still gives time for the Electoral Commissioner to finalise the rolls. We have to remember that gone are the days when these were paper rolls; they are now, primarily, an electronic document. I think five days should be enough time, particularly when we consider that, as technology advances, even at polling places the rolls will be provided in electronic form rather than on paper. That is an inevitability, I am sure. If that was the case, the shut off day for the rolls could be one or two days before the election and you could still have the integrity of the roll, if it was an electronic document.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Who does the data entry?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Ann Bressington asks, 'Who does the data entry?'. The point is that the data is coming in all the time. You would not have to rewrite the whole roll each time a person—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, and, as people are added to it, they are added to the database.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. R. P. Wortley): Please address the chair.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman, I am sorry that I allowed myself to be distracted. We need to remember who is disenfranchised when we close the rolls relatively early. In particular, it is young people, and it is people who are in rented accommodation rather than owning their own home, because renters move around more often than home owners.

I think this is a sensible amendment that leaves it late, but not too late, for as many South Australians as possible to make sure that they are on the roll—and on the roll in the seat appropriate to where they live.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The bill amends section 48 so that the date for the close of rolls is fixed at 10 days after the issue of the writs. The Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment is to section 48 so that the close of rolls must not be more than five days before the polling day. The government opposes this amendment.

The government has consulted the Electoral Commissioner, and she advises that, under the current provision, the roll is closed around 17 days prior to polling day. After the close of rolls, it is necessary to provide at least one extra day for the Australian Electoral Commission to finalise the processing of late enrolment cards. Once completed, the processing of the rolls is undertaken in Canberra and the roll product files are produced and issued to the Electoral Commissioner's office the following day. One of the files is used by the printers to produce the scannable rolls, and they require approximately three to four days to load, format and produce. This process also entails manual human intervention in formatting and truncation of names and addresses to fit the narrow column format.

Once the district rolls are printed (around 1,800), they must be distributed to each of the 47 returning officers around the state for allocation to each of the polling booth managers. This process can take up to three days and possibly longer in remote areas. The Electoral Commissioner requires about eight to 10 days to finalise, print and distribute the rolls ready for polling day. Under the current arrangements, they are distributed approximately one week prior to polling day and are used in supporting early voting, particularly in remote polling operations.

An additional complication with the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment would be the preparation and distribution of 1,900 or so iRolls, loaded with the entire state roll, to assist in the identification of each elector's voting entitlement, commencing from the issue of early voters some 12 days before polling day. Under the proposed amendment, the Electoral Commissioner will not be able to utilise these devices to assist in the allocation of the correct voting entitlement to electors voting that early. Likewise, the processing of postal votes—and there were over 65,000 of these in 2006—cannot be undertaken without the roll being finalised. Some believe already that the period for receiving applications and processing, issuing and receiving back the postal vote is too short. We can understand what the Hon. Mr Parnell is seeking to achieve, but our advice is that, unfortunately, it is just impractical.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: We on the Liberal side certainly agree with the government's position, based on the information provided by the Electoral Commissioner. It is interesting that the change made by this amendment is not great. Currently, the date fixed for closing the roll must be not less than seven nor more than 10, and now it is proposed in the government's amendment to specify an exact date of 10 days after the date of the issue of the writ. We believe that, for all the reasons given by the minister, that is an appropriate time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I advise the committee that I will not be dividing on this amendment, but I do have a question of the minister. Whilst the date for the close of the rolls is set at 10 days after the date of the issue of the writ, the date of the issue of the writ is still the unknown. With a fixed term parliament, where we know exactly what the polling date is every year, can the minister explain why on earth we keep open the date of the issue of the writ? Why cannot that also be set in legislation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I guess just convention, history and the way it is in the act is essentially the answer.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Although we do have fixed terms, there is the possibility of early elections, with notices of no confidence and the like. So, it is not possible to say in advance when every election will be held, and also given the fact that there is a capacity to delay an election beyond the four years for certain reasons.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I ask the minister to indicate whether there has been any incident or occasion which has necessitated this particular amendment: what is the reason for it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that there has been a case where this particular clause was recommended by a previous electoral commissioner out of an abundance of caution. I guess it is a case that could arise; perhaps it is unlikely, but out of that abundance of caution we have put it in. It seems to me to be a sensible measure, even if it is rarely used.

Clause passed.

New clause 17A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move;

New clause, page 12, after line 28—After clause 17 insert:

17A—Insertion of section 53B

After section 53A insert:

53B—Certain nominations must not be received

(1) This section applies if a by-election is to be held to fill a casual vacancy in the membership of the House of Assembly caused by the resignation of a member who was, immediately before resigning, a member of a registered political party.

Note—

This section will not apply to a by-election held to fill a casual vacancy caused by the death of a member or by vacation of a member's seat in accordance with section 31 of the Constitution Act 1934.

(2) The Electoral Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after the issue of the writ for the election, serve on the registered officer of the registered political party a written notice requiring the party to pay to the Electoral Commissioner an amount specified in the notice (being the Electoral Commissioner's estimate of the reasonable costs to the Crown of holding the by-election).

(3) The registered officer of the registered political party may not nominate a person as a candidate endorsed by the party for the election unless the party has paid the amount specified in the notice under subsection (2).

(4) If the amount specified in the notice is not paid on or before the date on which the by-election is held, the Electoral Commissioner may recover the amount from the registered political party as a debt.

(5) The Electoral Commissioner may determine that this section does not apply to the resignation of a member if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the resignation was reasonably necessary due to circumstances beyond the member's control (and if the Electoral Commissioner makes such a determination after serving a notice under this section in relation to the resignation, the notice will be void and of no effect).

Example—

If the retirement was due to a medical condition of the member or of a person who relies on the member for care, the Electoral Commissioner may determine that this section does not apply.

This amendment relates to a matter to which I have referred before in this place: that is, the situation where political parties use by-elections as a (sometimes unsuccessful) method of succession planning. In other words, a member of the lower house of parliament is encouraged, pushed, or otherwise cajoled into retiring to make way for new blood. There is nothing inherently wrong with political parties doing that, if that is the way they want to operate. The problem I have is that the taxpayer then picks up the tab.

A report from the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the Frome by-election was tabled in this parliament not that long ago, in which we were told that the cost of that by-election was $220,000. In a nutshell, my proposed amendment provides that if an MP decides to retire early for no good reason, then taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab to find their replacement, because $220,000—nearly a quarter of a million dollars—is a huge expense for taxpayers, not to mention the major inconvenience to the local community of having to come out and vote in an unnecessary election.

My amendment proposes three main things. First, it requires a political party to pay the cost of a by-election if one of their sitting members retires before the end of his or her four-year term for reasons other than those beyond their control (and I will come back to that in a moment). Secondly, it allows for legitimate exceptions such as, obviously, the death of a member (that is certainly beyond their control), major illness, or even a member wanting to retire to fulfil caring responsibilities, for example, in relation to a member of their family.

I appreciate that a political party cannot be forced to pay such a large amount of money if it does not have it, so my amendment provides that if the party that has effectively caused the by-election does not have the means to pay or does not want to pay, then that party should not be able to contest that by-election. Members may think that this is draconian, but I think that taxpayers would appreciate the fact that we are trying to put a stop to political parties using expensive by-elections as a method of succession planning. In relation to the Frome by-election, it did not go according to plan for the Liberal Party; it resulted in the election of an Independent member of parliament.

I should also say that my amendment will not stop members of parliament retiring; that is always an option for members if, for whatever reason, they do not want to see out their term. However, what my amendment will do is stop political parties using by-elections to arrange their succession planning.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As a personal observation, why is succession planning such a bad thing?

The Hon. M. Parnell: We pay for it. Do it at election time.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: One has to look at the overall good for the public, and I suggest that that probably is; however, that is just my personal view. This amendment inserts a new section 53B into the Electoral Act. Proposed section 53B is an attempt to force registered political parties to pay the costs of by-elections caused by the resignation of a party sitting MP.

Section 53B provides that as soon as possible after the issue of the writ the commissioner must send a party a notice specifying the cost of the by-election. If the party fails to pay the amount specified it cannot nominate a candidate, and the commissioner can then recover the cost of the by-election as a debt. The commissioner is given a discretion not to send the party a bill if satisfied that the circumstances leading to the resignation were beyond the member's control—for example, the illness of a dependant.

The government opposes this amendment. Proposed section 53B applies only where the member was a member of a party immediately before his or her resignation. It could be circumvented by the member resigning their party membership even just a short time before they resign their seat—and there would be nothing to stop the ex-member rejoining the party after a short spell. What I am saying is that there is a clear loophole in this.

Proposed section 53B punishes the party for what may well be the sins of the member. Why should a party be forced to pay the costs of a by-election caused by something that may be completely beyond its control? Proposed section 53B could financially cripple a smaller party—by-elections are not cheap to run—or force it not to contest an election. The government does not see how this could be good politics.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that the Liberal Party does not support this amendment. It is an inevitable consequence of political life, especially after a government has been in power for a long time, that there will be members who will stand in the hope that they will be re-elected and again hold office, or be re-elected but do not hold office—and I am thinking of Alexander Downer and, more recently, Brendan Nelson. It is entirely appropriate that those people, having served as they have, should be able to resign and the electorate be able to select a member to replace them. As the minister has indicated, the loophole in the Hon. Mr Parnell's proposal is that a member could resign from the party, and thereby avoid the charge that the honourable member would like to impose upon us. I think it is also fair to say that the way our electoral system is structured at the moment, with proportional representation applying only in this council, this is an easy proposal for the Greens or any other minor party to put because they are unlikely ever to have to foot the bill under it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I advise the committee that, having heard both the government and the opposition, I will not be dividing on this amendment but I want to comment on the two points that were made. First, the so-called loophole does not escape in terms of the drafting of this clause but, when faced with the resignation of a member from a political party a couple of days before and then retiring from parliament, I would say that the public would send a very clear message to the electorate that this was in fact succession planning at taxpayers' expense and that the party was using that method to avoid the charge.

I accept the points that have been made, that they would be able to avoid the charge, but I do not think it would go down well in the community. In relation to the Hon. Robert Lawson's comment about this not affecting the Greens, I hope very soon that it will be a provision that hangs over us as our many members of the lower house consider how committed they really are to their electorates and whether in putting themselves forward at election time they are in fact ready to run the full four-year term.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 18 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 15, lines 10 to 14 [clause 23, inserted section 66(5)]—Delete subsection (5) and substitute:

(5) The presiding officer at each polling booth must—

(a) ensure that any posters prepared under subsection (1)(a) are displayed in a prominent position in the polling booth and in accordance with any direction issued by the Electoral Commissioner; and

(b) ensure that posters or booklets prepared under subsection (1)(b) are made available in each compartment in which a person may vote in the polling booth.

This is a fairly simple amendment relating to the display of the various political parties' and candidates' upper house voting tickets, so we are talking here about the allocation of preferences where people vote above the line. My amendment seeks to ensure that the information as to what an above the line vote means for electors is as widely available as possible. My amendment seeks to ensure that the poster or the booklet (or whatever method is used) is available in each voting compartment rather than just somewhere in the polling place.

I think that making the consequences of voting above the line clearer to all voters is a more democratic option. I think it is unfortunate when people get into a compartment with their ballot paper and pencil and they do not have easy access to what it means to vote in a certain way. If the polling booth is crowded, they are reluctant to go to the back of the queue while they seek a copy of the booklet or the poster that tells them the consequences of the vote they are about to cast. So, I want to make it as easy as possible for people to understand what their vote means, and that means that each compartment should contain that relevant information.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Section 66 currently provides that posters formed from the how-to-vote cards submitted by candidates must be displayed in each voting compartment and that posters containing the Legislative Council voting tickets must be displayed in a prominent position in the polling booth. Clause 22 of the bill amends section 66 so that the Legislative Council voting tickets can be displayed in booklet form. Both the how-to-vote card posters and ticket booklets may be displayed in a prominent place in a polling booth.

The Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment will require the voting ticket booklets or posters to be displayed in each voting compartment. The Electoral Commissioner has raised serious concerns about this amendment. Based on the nominations for the past two elections, the commissioner anticipates that about 50 candidates will nominate for the Legislative Council; each of these is entitled to lodge two voting tickets. This means that there could be about 100 tickets to be displayed. As honourable members would realise, posters displaying up to 100 voting tickets in legible form will not fit in a voting compartment. If they are to be displayed in booklet form in each voting compartment, the cost would be very high and the logistics difficult to manage.

The commissioner estimates that each booklet would cost about $10 to produce. In the vicinity of 8,000 to 10,000 voting compartments will be in use at the next election. The managers of the polling booths will have to monitor each compartment to ensure that a copy of the booklet is displayed in each. If one goes missing, it will have to be replaced. This will be a logistical nightmare. For these reasons the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We support the thrust of the Hon. Mr Parnell's argument with this. We have given notice to the government that we have concerns about subclause (5) which I think is the key for the Hon. Mark Parnell and which provides:

The presiding officer at each polling booth must cause posters and booklets prepared under subsection (1) to be displayed or made available (as the case may be) in a prominent position in the polling booth and in accordance with any direction issued by the Electoral Commissioner.

I want to highlight that in this state up until this change, if this change gets through, when you go into your individual polling compartment, the how to vote cards for all the people in that electorate are stuck up there. I refer to the state elections, not commonwealth elections, and I think that is a negative with the federal elections.

When people walk past you when you are handing out how-to-vote cards—and there seems to be more a trend of that occurring—they know that they can go into that compartment. They have probably roughly worked out what their voting intention is, but they know that there is a check and balance there with them being stuck in. The effect of this clause 23 would, as I understand it, remove all of that out of the compartment.

When we checked with the government, it was intending to put something like a pedestal arrangement somewhere in the polling booth, expecting people to go there and work it out. People do not like to show their voting intentions. They are not going to go to the back corner of an area or into the middle and have people looking at them as they scribble down notes or anything like that. It has worked democratically and it has been very fair, particularly for the Independents and the minor parties because we do not always have the resources of the major parties, yet we are part of the democratic process.

If the intent of the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment is to ensure that the status quo remains—if there is a booklet as well that goes in there allowing for the so-called 100 Legislative Council potential candidates—that is fine, but the how-to-vote cards should remain stuck in those booths. I would like to know the reason for removing this. I would hate to think that it was a devious political move to offset the opportunities for Independents and minors.

We have expressed our concerns on this particular clause to the government and we would be opposing this clause if, indeed, it removes what I have just highlighted, and we would be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think everyone who voted at the last election would be well aware of how crowded it is getting inside the polling booths. I am not sure that anybody ever reads the sort of information that is in there. Obviously, there may be some people who do, and that is fine.

Essentially, what we are talking about here is the voting tickets. Under the current act the presiding officer at each polling booth must cause a poster prepared under subsection (1)(a) to be displayed in each voting compartment, and a poster prepared under subsection (1)(b) to be displayed in a prominent position in the polling booth.

The poster prepared under subsection (1)(a) is 'posters formed from the how-to-vote cards submitted by the candidates in the election', so they are displayed in each voting compartment, but the posters under (1)(b) are 'in relation to a Legislative Council election—posters containing the voting tickets registered for the purposes of the election', and they must be displayed in a prominent position at the polling booth. So, if someone wants to know how their vote is distributed if they vote above the line, and it is important that people should have access to that information if they wish, it is now required to be available in a prominent position in the polling booth.

What this amendment does is allow the Legislative Council voting tickets to be displayed in a booklet form, and both the how-to-vote card posters and the ticket booklets may be displayed in a prominent place in the polling booth. As I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, if you are requiring the voting ticket booklets to be in each compartment, that is going beyond what is currently the case. They are already so congested that what we are arguing is that that would be impractical.

The concern of the Electoral Commissioner is that if you are required to put the voting ticket information in the polling booth it then creates those difficulties that I have mentioned, quite apart from an incredibly significant cost imposition to do that, when probably virtually no-one will avail themselves of it. Of course, if one of them goes missing then it could lead to all sorts of complications because results could be challenged, and all that sort of thing, if the act has not been complied with. As I said, that is going to be a logistical nightmare.

As I understand it, the Electoral Commissioner will continue to have the House of Assembly voting cards in the polling booth. In the Legislative Council, where most people are voting above the line, clearly, that is a much easier situation in relation to a valid vote: you simply put '1' by the party that you wish to vote for. So, for that reason the information booklets are available for those people who want them in the polling place itself.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The government's proposal makes a serious change to the current practice. Although the minister just said that it would be the intention of the Electoral Commissioner to ensure that a poster containing the how-to-vote cards is put into a compartment, that is actually not the effect of this bill. Indeed, section 66(6)(a) of the current law provides that the how-to-vote poster be displayed in each voting compartment. That has been repealed.

What it has been replaced with is that that material has to be in the polling booth: not the compartment, but somewhere in the booth. That is a serious and major change, and I do not doubt for a moment what might be the intention of the Electoral Commissioner, but the Electoral Commission operates according to the letter of the law, as indeed that officer should, and we do not believe that there should be any change to that practice.

Another change wrought by the government's amendment is that the how-to-vote tickets do not have to be put onto a poster; they can be put into a booklet and that booklet can be displayed at the polling booth but is not required to be in each compartment. We are less concerned about that because, in our experience, there are not many electors who are too concerned about voting tickets.

There are some, and those who are sophisticated enough to be interested in the contents of voting tickets will make it their business to ascertain the contents. However, we are concerned about taking the how-to-vote card poster out of the compartment. We are faced presently with three solutions. On the one hand, there is the current status quo, which is that the how-to-vote cards are in each compartment and the poster setting out the voting tickets is somewhere in a prominent position in the booth but not in the compartment. We are happy with that. We prefer to stay with that than move to the government's position.

I do not believe that the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment is an improvement on the status quo, because his amendment requires both the poster and the booklet with the voting tickets to be in each compartment. We do accept—

The Hon. M. Parnell: It is not both; it is one or the other.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The honourable member says that it is either the posters or the booklets, but there will be both. There will be posters with how-to-vote cards and booklets with voting tickets, as I understand it. In any event, we do not believe that the honourable member's amendment is an improvement on the status quo. We would prefer to vote down the government's clause and stay with the status quo, because we do accept that to have to put in every compartment the booklet containing the voting tickets will give rise to difficulties of the sort described by the minister, namely, that the books will go missing.

There is not really a great use for them, but if the book does go missing, even if you tie it on a string etc., it may give rise to questions about the electoral process. Whilst we do not disagree in principle with what the honourable member is seeking to do, we do not believe it is an improvement on the status quo. It might be an improvement on the government's bill, but it is not an improvement on the status quo.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Mr Lawson is correct. In trying to get the voting tickets, the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to reverse what is the case now, effectively, and essentially that will be virtually impossible. I suppose you can have these things in booklets, but that is really what I think we need to go away from. We accept that perhaps this clause of the bill could be amended to clarify the situation. The how-to-vote cards, particularly for the House of Assembly, could be required in the compartment.

We are already recommitting the bill in relation to clause 5. I suggest that we just go with the status quo now if this is defeated. We could perhaps revisit it and the government will look at an amendment to clarify it. I suggest that as a course of action so that we can move on.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We would be happy to take the minister at his word on that and move on.

Amendment negatived; clause negatived.

Clauses 24 and 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 16, after line 23 [clause 26(6)]—After inserted subsection (7) insert:

(8) A candidate in an election, or a person acting on behalf of or otherwise assisting a candidate in an election, must not offer or agree to transmit any application by an elector for the issue of declaration voting papers under this section.

Maximum penalty: $1,250

This amendment seeks to restrict the practice of sitting members of parliament playing a very interventionist role in the collecting of postal votes. My amendment proposes that it be unlawful to offer or agree to transmit any application by an elector for the issue of declaration voting papers. My amendment says that that is an improper practice and that we should ban it. I think that electoral roll registration should be a private matter between a citizen and the Electoral Commission.

At present, members of parliament are now using these applications for postal votes to create databases which are not available to anyone else. They are just one of those spoils of incumbency. I think that postal vote forms should be sent straight to the Electoral Commission and not through the offices of sitting members of parliament.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment prevents a candidate or anyone acting for or assisting a candidate from transmitting or offering or agreeing to transmit applications for declaration voting papers. The government believes that candidates and their assistants, including party officials, perform a valuable service in helping people so entitled to apply for declaration voting papers.

The bill already amends the relevant section to require a person acting as an intermediary to transmit the application as soon as possible, and it will be an offence not to do so. The government believes this is sufficient. The amendment is opposed.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 26A.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 16, after line 23—

After clause 26 insert:

26A—Amendment of section 76—Method of voting at elections

Section 76(1)(a)—Delete 'all candidates' and substitute:

not less than 11 candidates

The effect of this new clause is to amend section 76(1)(a) of the existing act by deleting the words 'all candidates'. The purpose of that is to effectively introduce optional preferential voting, whereby voters only have to fill out the number of squares equivalent to the number of seats to be filled in an election rather than the number of candidates. In the Legislative Council, for example, it would mean filling out 1 to11 and then having the vote still continued as a formal vote; they would not have to go right through the whole list.

The rationale for this is that it makes it simpler for the voter; they do not have to go through the process of listing a whole lot of candidates about whom they have no idea. It is an amendment that was originally proposed by Kris Hanna in the lower house. There is a very small statistical chance that one could vote for 11 people who do not get elected, but apparently that chance is extremely small. So, it is a method of just simplifying elections and making it easier for voters, and I commend it to the committee. I should also point out that my next amendment, No. 21, is consequential on this one. So, if this amendment is lost it will not be necessary to put amendment No. 21.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment will introduce optional preferential voting for Legislative Council elections—or, at least, I suppose one might describe it as partially optional. Amendment No. 20 amends section 76(1) so that an elector voting on a non-ticket basis need number only the boxes 1 to 11 on the ballot paper (which of course is the number of vacancies at each election) but will not have to number all the boxes, as is the case now.

The commissioner advises that this amendment will cause difficulties. Where ballot papers are not fully preferential in an election under proportional representation, those ballot papers that have no next preference on them when allocated after a candidate is elected or excluded will not be available for distribution to any other candidate. This is known as exhausting: the preferences have exhausted.

Under optional preferential voting, a number of the candidates elected late in the count will almost certainly be below the quota that was required for those elected early in the count—for example, an elector votes 1 to 11 for the least popular candidates or groups. As each candidate is excluded from the count, the ballot paper is then distributed to the next preference. This continues as each of the candidates is excluded and, when it gets to No. 12, where the numbers do not now continue, it exhausts. It goes to nobody and is no longer in the count.

The commissioner believes that this could happen with a significant number of ballot papers because, while only 5 per cent of people vote below the line now, this number may increase if electors need number only the first 11 boxes. If this was to occur, there would not be 900,000 ballot papers remaining in the count, as occurs now, to elect the candidates filling the last two or three vacancies. Rather, these could be elected with substantially fewer ballot papers. Given the impact the amendment will likely have on the quota system, the government opposes it.

New clause negatived.

Clause 27.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: This clause will prohibit a scrutineer acting as an assistant. Currently, section 80 provides that a voter may be accompanied by an assistant if the voter satisfies the presiding officer that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, and that is an important provision. The provision is being amended by the insertion of a new subsection, which provides:

A candidate, or a scrutineer appointed by a candidate, must not act as an assistant under this section.

We quite accept that it would be inappropriate for a candidate to be going into a polling booth with an elector, but why exclude a scrutineer? In the ordinary course, most scrutineers at polling places are volunteers who attend during the scrutiny after the polls close. Many of them will be handing out how-to-vote cards and will be available to assist electors at polling stations. Why should such a person be excluded from assisting someone who wants their assistance?

I ask the minister to indicate whether there have been particular problems with this issue and to give examples of it—scrutineers misbehaving or not appropriately exercising their powers. I also ask the minister to comment on the fact that a lot of scrutineers do not register as such until the closing of the poll or near the closing of the poll, when they hand in their form and go in to view the count. So, whilst such a person might hold an appointment, he or she is technically not a scrutineer until the time when the registration form is handed in. Will not this measure only have the effect of ensuring that people do not register as a scrutineer until the very last moment so that they can, if required, assist an elector who requires assistance?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My understanding of the history of this is that it was one of the recommendations that came out of the 2002 election, and the logic is a simple one: if a candidate should not act to assist a voter, why should the scrutineer who is appointed by the candidate have that right?

Of course, some of us have scrutineered down the years, and the Hon. Robert Lawson raised the question about people who do not sign the scrutineer forms until afterwards. I suppose there are those scrutineers who perform a very important role at the opening of a count, when the ballot boxes are opened and set up; there are those people who scrutineer during the polling from 8am to 6pm; and, of course, often others will act as scrutineers during the count. I think the forms are the same and there is no distinction made.

I think in terms of the history of this measure it simply was a recommendation earlier by the commission on the basis that if you believe it is inappropriate—and I think most of us would think it would be inappropriate for a candidate to assist voters directly under this section—it ought to be any scrutineer appointed by the candidate.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Is it not the case, even without this particular provision, that the candidate would, in any event, be barred by other provisions of the act from acting as an assistant? Candidates are not allowed to act as scrutineers and, by and large, have to stay away from the polling booth.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What was the specific question?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: A candidate would, in any event, be precluded from being an assistant because of the ban on candidates participating in the election other than for the purpose of casting their own vote.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes; if the member is making the point that there are probably other provisions that effectively preclude the candidate, section 117 of the act (candidates not to take part in elections) says: 'A person must not take part in the conduct of an election in which he or she is a candidate for election' and 'must not personally solicit the vote of any elector on polling day'. I guess this just makes it crystal clear in terms of acting as an assistant. Whereas it might well be covered as taking part in the conduct of an election, I guess this makes it crystal clear that it is not. It just covers any ambiguity in section 117.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that, in the absence of the government's being able to demonstrate any particular difficulties about having scrutineers acting as assistants, we do not support this amendment. We are not satisfied that it is necessary.

I remind the minor parties that it is actually they who are probably most adversely affected by this prohibition of scrutineers acting as assistants. The major parties are usually well served by volunteers handing out how to vote cards who can act in this capacity, but my experience of the minor parties is that their volunteers spend the whole day, sometimes one to a polling booth, and they may well be called upon by a supporter who was unable to vote to act as an assistant. So I indicate that we do not support this provision.

The committee divided on the clause:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Clause thus passed.

Clauses 28 to 33 passed.

Clause 34.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Can the minister explain the precise intended effect of this amendment, in particular, the insertion of subsection (4a)? In other words, what change is wrought by this provision?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I understand that this is consequential upon an earlier amendment. I recall discussing earlier this week what would happen if someone indicated a notice of intention to lodge a ticket and then failed to do so. This clause is about ensuring that, if a notice of intention to lodge a ticket for a Legislative Council election was given but the ticket then was not subsequently lodged in accordance with the requirements of the act and the ballot papers for the election contain a voting ticket square on the basis that the voting ticket was to be lodged and the voter then uses that voting ticket square, that ballot paper is informal unless section 92(4) applies. Section 92(4) provides:

Where a voter marks a ballot paper by placing the number 1 in a voting ticket square but also indicates preferences for individual candidates, the following provisions apply:

(a) if the indication of preferences for individual candidates would, if it stood alone, constitute a valid vote, that indication of preferences will be taken to be the vote of the voter and the mark in the voting ticket square will be disregarded;

(b) if the indication of preferences for individual candidates would not, if it stood alone, constitute a valid vote, it will be disregarded and the vote of the voter will be taken to have been expressed by the mark in the voting ticket square.

As I have said, it simply deals with that eventuality. Section 94(6)—Informal ballot papers—provides:

Where—

(a) a ballot paper has not been marked by a voter in the manner required by this act; but

(b) despite that fact, the voter's intention is clear,

the ballot paper is not informal and will be counted as if the voter's intention had been properly expressed in the manner required by this act.

In other words, the vote would be invalid unless the provisions in the current act to validate votes apply; that is, where the notice of intention to lodge was not subsequently lodged, the vote would be invalid.

Clause passed.

Clauses 35 to 39 passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 23, lines 16 to 38, page 24, lines 1 to 20—Delete inserted section 112C.

I am quite concerned about this clause. Members will recall that when you get close to an election you receive a lot of questionnaires from a huge variety of interest groups—people with social issues, SACOSS, environmental groups and pro life groups. Lots of groups write asking you, as a candidate, to advise their organisation of your voting intentions with respect to certain issues that are important and relevant to them.

From my own personal experience (having so far had to do it four times), I have always accepted that, as a candidate, once you tick a box or say which way you will go on an issue—for example, a questionnaire from the Conservation Foundation might ask whether you agree with the commonwealth having full hand-over of the Murray-Darling Basin system—once you say yes or no, those people or organisations have the right to print that in their newsletters for wider distribution to their members, and others who may be interested. If you do not accept that then you do not fill in their form. Some choose to do that, and those organisations then generally put in their newsletters or publications that that candidate for a seat in the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council did not comment or did not return their questionnaire.

I was very keen, with most of these publications, to get my point of view out, because it is hard for Independents or smaller parties to do that; it is nowhere near as easy as it is for the bigger parties. In a House of Assembly marginal seat, for example, this time we will probably see the major parties easily spend $100,000 in that one seat. So, they can get their messages out there, but it is not easy for the small parties and the Independents; it is hard yakka. You might be doing well to spend $5,000 in that seat. So, if you get the opportunity to put information into a questionnaire that is distributed to a sector of your electorate, that is of benefit to you. This bill effectively removes that. It provides that an organisation is guilty of an offence:

(1) If, in any matter announced or published, or caused to be announced or published, by a person on behalf of any association, league, organisation or other body, it is—

(a) claimed or suggested that a candidate in an election is associated with, or supports the policy or activities of, that association, league, organisation or body; or

(b) expressly or impliedly advocated or suggested—

(i) in the case of a Legislative Council election—that a voter should place in the square opposite the name of a candidate on a ballot-paper a number not greater than the number of members to be elected; or

(ii) in the case of a House of Assembly election—that that candidate is the candidate for whom the first preference vote should be given,

I do not know why the government would have dreamed up this clause; it puts an absolute impost on those organisations that simply want to have a democratic right to advise their members or readers about what particular candidates or parties do or do not support. It is a total disadvantage to them—in fact, the maximum penalty is $5,000, or $1,000 for an individual—and, as I said, it limits the chances for those of us who are Independents or who are in small parties to get our message out there. For that reason, Family First is absolutely opposed to this clause.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment seeks to delete new section 112C. New Section 112C prohibits a person, on behalf of any association, league, organisation or other body, from making an announcement or distributing material in which it is claimed or suggested that a candidate in an election is associated with, or supports the policy or activities of, that association, league, organisation or body; or expressly or impliedly advocated or suggested:

(i) in the case of a Legislative Council election—that a voter should place in the square opposite the name of a candidate on a ballot-paper a number not greater than the number of members to be elected; or

(ii) in the case of a House of Assembly election—that that candidate is the candidate for whom the first preference vote should be given,

without the consent of the candidate.

New section 112C in fact replicates section 351 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The government believes that these are sensible measures. Primarily, they will prevent an organisation from tainting a candidate by claiming or suggesting that the candidate is associated with it, or supports its policies or activities, including by recommending preferences that favour the candidate. Such an association could do great harm to a candidate, particularly if the organisation holds views or advocates policies that are contrary to those of the candidate. However, notwithstanding the merits of proposed section 112C, the government is aware of concerns held by some members and is prepared to compromise and agree to its deletion from the bill.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am glad to see that the government does not propose to insist on this clause. It is true that the clause is based on section 351 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. According to a paper issued by the Australian Electoral Commission in a submission to the Queensland Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, the history of this clause is that in the 1930s there was concern that the Communist Party was issuing material which suggested that electors should vote for a particular Labor candidate with their own candidate as number two. Of course, that action by the Communist Party was seized upon by opponents of the Labor Party to show that that party had links to the communists. Reference was made in the Senate to the fact that the Temperance Party and also the Protestant Labour Party were issuing tickets and Senator Collings said:

It tells the people to vote for certain candidates. Those candidates are immediately in trouble with electors who are not Protestants.

An example of that would be the non-temperance vote. However, while the section has had a long history in the commonwealth Electoral Act, there has been no successful prosecution under it in the 50 or 60 years that it has been in operation. I note that there has been pressure from certain organisations that the clause be excluded. I am delighted that the government has accepted that proposition.

However, I have other questions in relation to other aspects of clause 40. I want to ask the minister questions about proposed section 112A, which deals with how-to-vote cards. The clause provides that during the election period a person must not distribute how-to-vote cards unless they are appropriately authorised, etc. Also, it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of sections 92, 93 and 63, all of which deal with registered voting tickets.

My question to the minister is this: is it permissible to register a voting ticket with a particular allocation of preferences (or perhaps even a split voting ticket with an allocation of preferences) and then to authorise on the day the distribution of how-to-vote cards which are inconsistent with the registered voting ticket? It is a practice which was apparently used in at least one electorate in the last election—namely, to register a particular voting ticket but then, on the day, you tell your supporters not to vote in accordance with your registered ticket but to alter the order of preferences.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The short answer is yes, they can differ. The explanation that the Hon. Mr Hunter has just advised me is that they are for different purposes. A voting ticket is to ensure that votes are formal but the how-to-vote cards are often designed from the point of view of simplicity. I think all of us who have been involved in elections understand that on a how-to-vote card for a major party the numbers will be preferences to be distributed. That can be done for convenience but, in terms of actual preferences, they may differ.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Perhaps I did not express my concern appropriately. As we have heard in the earlier debate, candidates are entitled to put in a how-to-vote card which is displayed in the compartment. My question is: having inserted in the material which is displayed in the compartment a certain how-to-vote ticket, can a member hand out at the booths how-to-vote cards that are inconsistent with that which has been registered with the Electoral Commission and published in the booth? If so, is that not a practice which ought be stopped?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is hard to understand why you would want to do that. But my advice is that there is nothing to stop people doing that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 41 and 42 passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 25, lines 12 to 36 [clause 43(2), (3), and (4)]—Delete subclauses (2), (3) and (4)

In moving this amendment, I propose to delete subclauses (2), (3) and (4) from clause 43. These are the clauses that impose the ban on corflutes. The government accepts that it does not have the numbers to get clause 43 passed by this place. Rather than prolonging debate, the government has decided to concede on this matter.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We thank the government for seeing some wisdom on this, and we support what the government is now proposing.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: We also support this amendment, but we are not so inclined to congratulate the government for it. The government introduced this and, if you read the debate in another place, supported it, justified it, said it was warranted, said it was a great thing, not negotiable, and all the rest of it, and when it was debated in another place criticism of it was rejected out of hand as nonsense, but now the government has—for the basest political reasons—abandoned its amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: We will try to avoid second reading speeches, if we can.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My feeling is, with this amendment getting up, that two subsequent amendments—one by the Hon. David Winderlich and the other by myself—will become redundant, because we were proposing a change to those clauses.

I put it to the committee that the alternative to the government's ban on public advertisements (the Stobie pole ads) would have been to impose a reasonable limit on the number of posters that could be put up in any one electorate for any one candidate. That amendment was put forward by the member for Mitchell in another place, and I think it had a great deal of merit because, if one of the government's original reasons for wanting to ban these Stobie pole corflutes was that they contributed to visual pollution, we could reduce the number of posters that are put up in the electorate but still enable a fairly level playing field, so that everyone had the right to put up 200 corflutes in each seat.

What I hear from other members is that, given that we are going to be removing the government's restrictions, we will effectively go back to an open slather situation. However, if this amendment of the government were to fail, I would persevere with the 200 limit, because I think that is very sensible.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I indicate my support for the government's amendment but, as with the previous two speakers, I am less complimentary about it. I think it was an outrageous attempt to entrench incumbency. That is shown by the fact that there was a cut-out date of 2014, which allowed for the fact that the Labor Party may not have access to the resources of government at that time and may want a more level playing field. It was a rich party's policy, and if the government's amendment fails—and I do not think it will—I would attempt to amend it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 43A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 25, after line 36—After clause 43 insert:

43A—Insertion of section 115A

After section 115 insert:

115A—Restrictions on publicly funded advertising campaigns

(1) A person who, within the pre-election period, authorises, causes, or permits the publication by any means (including radio, television or the Internet) of a publicly funded advertisement is guilty of an offence if the advertisement contains—

(a) the name of, or an image of, any member of Parliament or person who proposes to be a candidate at the relevant election; or

(b) the name of, or any symbol or logo adopted by, any registered political party.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a natural person—$750;

(b) If the offender is a body corporate—$2 500.

(2) In this section—

pre-election period means the period of 6 months immediately prior to the day on which a general election of members of the House of Assembly must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934.

This proposed new clause seeks to restrict the use of the names and images of members of parliament, or the images and names of ministers, or the name of the governing party or its logo, in any taxpayer-funded advertisements in the six months leading up to a state election. The purpose of this amendment is to stop the government of the day using taxpayer funds to promote its party, its members or its ministers, and also in relation to running a negative campaign against other parties.

Members would be aware that the Premier announced some time ago that he was going to bring an end to the use of his ministers' voices and images on TV and radio advertisements, but he did not go so far as to prohibit ministers' photos being in the print media, for example. The Premier also drew a distinction between what the government regards as routine advertising as compared to campaign advertising.

For example, when we look at the case of an ad in a newspaper featuring the smiling face of minister Koutsantonis, as the Minister for Volunteers, and the purpose of the ad is to thank all volunteers for their service to the state, that was regarded as a routine or functional ad and the Premier's announcement did not extend to preventing what many see as fairly blatant political advertising using taxpayer funds.

I challenge the government to provide me with the name of one volunteer in the entire state whose volunteering is due to the exhortations of minister Koutsantonis, rather than their belief in the cause, whatever it is, whether it is surf-lifesaving, Meals on Wheels or something else. I say that in case members think that this issue has been dealt with and no longer requires any legislative amendment.

I am not convinced that the government has seen the light on its misuse of taxpayers' money for advertising. I would like to see our electoral laws enshrine this ban in the six months leading up to a state election.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment seeks to prohibit the appearance of a member of parliament or the display of a symbol, logo or name of a registered political party in a publicly funded advertisement broadcast on radio, TV or the internet during the six months before polling day. I assume that is aimed at governments spruiking their achievements in the lead-up to an election in publicly funded advertisements which purport to make public announcements but which feature government MPs.

The government opposes the amendment. The Premier has already announced that he has banned government members from appearing in advertisements on television and radio. He has also proposed strengthening the Independent Communications Advisory Group, which monitors and approves advertising expenditure. The government has concerns with the amendment as proposed. For a start, what does 'publicly funded' mean? I think that we all know what the Hon. Mr Parnell is getting at, but I am not sure whether leaving the term undefined is appropriate.

Secondly, who is liable if such an advertisement is broadcast? It is not the member, unless by appearing in the advertisement the MP is taken to have authorised its broadcast. It could be the public servant who authorises the advertisement being aired—the one who signs whatever needs to be signed to get the advertisement broadcast. However, assuming a 'person' includes a body corporate. It could also be the company that holds the TV licence, the manager of the TV station and even the technician who pushes the button that broadcasts the advertisement. The government's approach is the better one. The amendment raises too many questions.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have general sympathy with what the honourable member is doing, but I personally believe we need to go much broader. I also note what the minister said with respect to some aspects of the amendment. Given that the Hon. Mr Parnell has a select committee going at the moment, which we support and commend him for initiating, and the fact that legislation is still here which I have tabled and which could run parallel to it, broadly banning this ongoing, not just for six months, I would be looking to focus more on supporting those sorts of initiatives, because we must stop this blatant political advertising at taxpayers' expense.

I think that this amendment could have some consequences that we have not looked into. I would rather see what happens when the select committee reports and then also look at the bill I have tabled.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that we also believe that the underlying sentiment behind the honourable member's amendment is sound. However, we will not be supporting the amendment on this occasion but will, in the fullness of time and after the select committee reports, be looking to an appropriate amendment to prevent the government abusing the privileged position it has in relation to government advertising.

We are by no means convinced that the voluntary code embraced by the Premier will provide the community the protection it needs. It is with some reluctance that, on this occasion, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will make just a brief response to comments that have been made—comments that I generally endorse in relation to this particular amendment not going far enough. Yes, we do need a broader restriction on the blatant misuse of taxpayers' funds for party political purposes, but I would remind Family First and the Liberal Party that I am constrained to a certain extent by the fact that this is an electoral bill and any restriction needs to relate to electoral purposes, which is why I have chosen the amendment I have.

I will not be dividing on it. I understand there is support for the intent. I, too, look forward to the final report of the select committee into taxpayer-funded ads, which may deal with campaigning in the election period particularly; I do not know, as we have not determined that yet. Certainly, the committee has not reported, so at this stage I would not want to comment on that. I wanted to make the point that the government's announcements to date do not go far enough. They are not in legislation and, as I have said, they have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

New clause negatived.

Clause 44.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, line `10 [clause 44(3)]—Delete ', or an electronic publication on the internet,' and substitute:

(including a journal published in electronic form on the internet)

Amendment No. 8 in my name amends clause 44 of the bill to refine the amendments to section 116. Amendment No. 8 should be treated as a test amendment for the series of amendments that follow. Section 116 Part 1 provides that a person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of or containing a commentary on any candidate, party or issues being submitted to electors in written form or by radio or television unless the material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material. Section 116 Part 2 provides exceptions to the disclosure requirements in subsection (1), and these are:

(a) the publication in a newspaper of a leading article;

(b) the publication of a report of certain meetings;

(c) the publication in a newspaper of an article, letter, report or other matter if the newspaper contains a statement to the effect that a person whose name and address appears in the statement takes responsibility for the publication of all electoral matter published in the newspaper; and

(d) a news service or a current affairs program on radio or TV.

Clause 44 amends section 116 Part 1 so that the requirement to include a statement will also apply to material consisting of or containing commentary on any candidate, party or issues being submitted to voters, etc., that is published or broadcast on the internet. The third exception—the publication in a newspaper of an article, letter, report or other matter if the newspaper contains a statement to the effect that a person whose name and address appears in the statement takes responsibility for the publication of all electoral matter published in the newspaper—is repealed and the reference to 'newspaper' is replaced with that of 'journal'—'journal' being defined to mean a newspaper, magazine or other periodical. Amendment No. 8 amends clause 44, so that the amendments to section 116 Part 1 apply more narrowly to written material published on the internet. The intention is to limit the coverage of section 116 as it applies to the internet to electronic versions of a journal rather than any electronic publication on the internet.

The government's concern is that, as currently amended by clause 44, section 116 will be too broad. It will cover personal web pages and social networking sites and the internet publication of Twitter. It will also apply to websites hosted by MPs, parties and candidates. This was raised as a concern during briefings on the bill.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, line 4—Delete 'by publication or'

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 8. It deletes the words 'by publication or' from clause 44(1).

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, line 10 [Clause 44(3)]—Delete ', or an electronic publication on the internet,' and substitute:

(including a journal published in electronic form on the internet)

Again, this amendment is consequential. Amendment No. 10 amends clause 44(3) of the bill. The effect of this will be that section 116(1) will not apply to the publication in a journal, including a journal published electronically on the internet, of a leading article.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, line 11 [clause 44(4)]—Delete subclause (4) and substitute:

(4) Section 116(2)(c)—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) the publication in a journal (including a journal published in electronic form on the internet) of an article, letter, report or other matter if—

(i) the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material is provided to the publisher of the journal and retained by the publisher for a period of six months after the end of the election period; and.

(ii) the journal contains a statement of the name and postcode of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material;

(ca) the publication of a letter (otherwise than as described in paragraph (c)) that contains the name and address (not being a post office box) of the author of the letter;

Currently, section 116(2)(c) provides that section 116(1) does not apply to the publication in a newspaper of an article, letter, report or other matter if the newspaper contains a statement to the effect that a person whose name and address appears in the statement takes responsibility for the publication of all electoral matter published in the newspaper. Clause 44 of the bill repeals this position. Amendment No. 11 inserts an amended version of section 116(2(c) into the act.

New paragraph (c) provides that section 116 does not apply to the publication in a journal, including a journal published in electronic form on the internet, of an article, letter, report or other matter if the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material is provided to the publisher of the journal and is retained by the publisher for a period of six months after the election and the journal contains a statement of the name and postcode of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material.

This would still require the publisher to publish the name of the person who takes responsibility for the material rather than allowing the publisher to take responsibility for all such material published in the journal, but the publisher will not have to disclose the person's street address; his or her postcode will be sufficient. However, to take advantage of this amendment, the publisher will have to retain the person's name and address for a period of six months after the end of the election period.

Amendment No. 11 also inserts new subsection (ca) into section 116(2). This provision will exempt the publication of a letter, otherwise than as described in paragraph (c), that contains the name and address (not being a post office box) of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material. This is to address concerns that a letter that is clearly authorised by a person—for example, a member of parliament—should not also need to contain a statement that complies with section 116(1).

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The minister suggested that these amendments now being made by the government are as a result of concerns. By whom were those concerns expressed and what change is being wrought by reason of the minister's latest amendment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I understand that the member for Bragg raised some issues in relation to the need to put the statement on a website, and so on. I have not expressed any concerns to the Attorney in relation to the issue of the internet. However, whilst I have not done so, that is not to say that I do not share the concerns. I think anyone who looks at what is increasingly happening on the internet, in terms of comment, could not help but be a little concerned. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has also expressed—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I'm sorry; I missed that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are talking about those who have expressed concerns in relation to these issues of the internet and whether the statement of the name and address should be on it.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Yes.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, I think it was the Hon. Mr Brokenshire as well as the member for Bragg.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 45 passed.

Clause 46.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, lines 22 to 31—Delete clause 46

Clause 46 inserts new section 137 into the act. Section 137 provides immunity to the Electoral Commissioner and her staff. Section 137 is no longer needed because of section 74 of the Public Sector Act 2009.

Amendment carried; clause passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Paragraph 2 of the schedule will amend section 82 of the Constitution Act, which deals with electoral redistributions and the requirement for an electoral redistribution to commence after each state election. Currently, the section requires the commission to embark upon that redistribution within three months of the election and continue it with all due expedition. This amendment will extend that period from three months by a very considerable margin to 24 months. The original proposal in the Constitution was to ensure that electoral redistributions were conducted quickly so that the community, candidates, etc., would be well aware in advance of the next election where the new boundaries lay.

I have played some role in relation to recent electoral redistributions, and I agree that the three month time limit was unnecessarily restrictive. For example, at the last election, the latest demographic and census material was not available, and it would have been advantageous not to have been under the restraint of conducting the redistribution within three months of the election. However, I query how 24 months was selected. It will enable the procedure to be delayed; it will enable more recent demographic information to be used in the redistribution process; but it may not enable members, candidates, parties and communities to know well in advance of the forthcoming election what the boundaries will be. So my question is: how did the government hit upon 24 months as being the appropriate period?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The short answer is: the advice of the Electoral Commissioner. I will refer to the second reading report, because I think it best deals with this issue. The Electoral Commissioner advises that, with the 2001 amendments to the Constitution Act introducing fixed four year terms, the current framework for conducting an electoral redistribution, which requires the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to commence its proceedings within three months of the election and complete those proceedings with all due diligence, has caused logistical and operational difficulties for the commission. The data necessary to perform the process so that the boundaries reflect the demographics of the state as accurately and as up-to-date as possible is not generally available until the second or third year after an election. For example, following the last state election the commission was required to commence its proceedings by June 2006 and complete them with all due diligence.

The last population census was conducted in August of 2006. The 2006 census data was not then available. This meant the commission had to rely upon census data from 2001 with annual updates to 2006, and then project possible population data out of the timing for the subsequent election in 2010. The demographers have raised their concern with using this method for determining population movements and trends so far into the future. A similar problem will arise with a redistribution required to be conducted after the 2010 state election. The commission would benefit greatly in both currency and accuracy of demographic projections if it were able to deliberate later in the parliamentary term.

The CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to the schedule in the name of the minister.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 27, line 25 [Schedule 1, clause 4(2)]—Delete '2010' and substitute '2011'

This amendment removes the transitional provisions in clause 4(2) of the schedule to the bill. Clause 4(2) provides that a political party registered under part 6 of the act immediately before the relevant day, which is the day on which the amendments to the party registration provisions come into operation, is not required to furnish a return under section 43A of the act, as amended, until 30 September 2010. This is intended to protect parties from having to file returns about party membership in the year in which the new registration provisions commence, when the transitional provisions also give them six months to comply with the new requirements.

Given that the government has decided not to commence the new registration provisions until after next year's election, the date of 30 September 2010 needs to be pushed out to 30 September 2011: hence, the amendment. I think this gives effect to some indications I had given to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in relation to the government's intention not to bring certain provisions into effect until after the next election.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We support this amendment, because it puts absolute clarity into the points raised earlier in the debate regarding when a lot of these matters will be prescribed and implemented—clearly, after the next election—so we support the amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.