Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2017.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:16): I would like to thank honourable members who have contributed to the second reading debate on this bill. I would like to take the opportunity to refer to amendments that the government has filed in relation to this bill. Many of those amendments relate to part 13A of the Electoral Act, the funding, expenditure and disclosure scheme, and I will quickly go through some of the key changes in those areas.

First, there is a change to the definition of 'political expenditure'. The new definition will allow items of political expenditure to be prescribed rather than just 'purposes' that are considered to be political expenditure purposes, as is currently the case. The change is intended to allow greater flexibility in terms of providing in regulations what is and what is not political expenditure.

Second, there is a change to try to stop parties or candidates incurring political expenditure on electoral matter outside of the capped expenditure period when that electoral matter is for the primary purpose of use in the capped expenditure period. Currently, political expenditure is taken to be incurred 'when the services for which the expenditure is incurred are actually provided or the goods for which the expenditure is incurred are actually delivered'. This is found in section 130A(6) of the Electoral Act.

The amendments propose to insert a new section 130A(6a), which provides that where political expenditure is on an electoral matter relating to a candidate or group for election, and is incurred after the polling day of the last preceding election and before the commencement of the capped expenditure period, and the political expenditure is for the primary purpose of publication, use or display of that electoral matter during the capped expenditure period, then the expenditure will be taken to have been incurred during the capped expenditure period. This is intended to prevent a party or candidate incurring a significant amount of political expenditure in, for example, the months before an election period in order to avoid the capped expenditure period.

Third, as was foreshadowed in the debate on the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill, which passed last year, there are some changes proposed in relation to section 130C. The text of current section 130C is unclear and ambiguous. There have been difficulties trying to ascertain the intention behind it although it is apparent that it relates to the interaction between South Australia's funding, expenditure and disclosure scheme and the scheme under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The amendments delete the current section 130C entirely and propose a replacement. The new section 130C will say that:

A registered political party is only required under this Part to disclose donations and amounts received or applied for State electoral purposes.

There is also related amendment to section 130L to provide that a registered political party does not need to put a gift that is not intended to be used for state electoral purposes into a state campaign account. The intention behind these amendments is to draw a line between donations to a registered political party that relate to its registration under the South Australian Electoral Act and, where that party is also federally registered, donations that relate to its registration under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

State-registered political parties that are also registered federally will, of course, need to have a state campaign account. They may also have a federal campaign account. These amendments seek to make it clear that a party may put donations to a federal campaign account, and those donations do not need to be reported to the South Australian Electoral Commission. However, there cannot be transfers from the federal campaign account to the state campaign account. This protects the integrity of the disclosure scheme.

Questions may arise about what are 'state electoral purposes'. That phrase should be read broadly, having regard to the objects of part 13A, which include 'to ensure transparency in political donations'. 'State electoral purposes' would include purposes relating to elections under the South Australian Electoral Act, as well as the operations of political parties that are registered for the purposes of the South Australian Electoral Act, but would exclude purposes directly relating to commonwealth elections or the federally-focused activities of political parties.

Fourthly, there are some amendments that are intended to help the Electoral Commissioner to administer the funding expenditure and disclosure scheme and to simplify the key dates under the scheme. They include that there will now be just one capped expenditure period. It will start on 1 July the financial year before a state election. For new candidates or parties that emerge after that time, there is no longer a special shortened capped expenditure period. The same capped expenditure period applies to everyone.

Similarly, there is just one designated period that commences on 1 January in the year of an election. If a candidate does not declare that he or she will run until after 1 January, there is not a new special designated period for the person: the same designated period applies. What has changed to ensure that candidates who decide to run late in the day and not be disadvantaged is that they are exempt from any requirement to furnish returns on a date prior to the commencement of their disclosure period.

Fifthly, there is an amendment to section 130A(5), which is intended to ensure that a registered political party is not required to have a state campaign account for every candidate. The party and its candidates are only required to have one state campaign account.

Finally, there are amendments to section 130Z and the provisions relating to the political expenditure cap that is agreed between political parties and their endorsed candidates. Currently, there is a requirement for parties to provide the Electoral Commissioner with a copy of any agreements setting out a candidate's political expenditure cap within three days of the agreement being made. There is scope to change the agreement; if it is changed then, again, the new agreement would need to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner within three days.

The Electoral Commissioner has advised that this information is not required; the Electoral Commissioner just requires the final agreement. As such, amendments have been made to provide that. Where there is an agreement between a party and it's endorsed candidate about the candidate's expenditure cap, a copy of that agreement must be provided to the Electoral Commissioner eight days prior to polling day. That agreement cannot then be varied.

The Electoral Commissioner must not publish an agreement until after the end of the capped expenditure period. Again, I thank members for their significant contributions to date, and I look forward to dealing with it quickly through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At the outset, I indicate a couple of issues in response; firstly, to the minister's second reading closure contribution. In doing so, I thank the Attorney and his hardworking staff for their considerable assistance in trying to understand the complexities of the various changes that are to be debated in the committee stage. I also thank members of the crossbench for their consideration of complicated amendments, which we will continue with today, and for their cooperation in terms of the discussions.

I will say at the outset two things. One is that, insofar as the contribution from the minister in closing the second reading debate provides further clarification of the thinking and intention of the government as the movers and proponents of the legislation—and his comments as they relate to part 13A, which is the public funding and disclosure provisions—as a representative of the Liberal Party, I support the government's outline of the intentions of the various changes.

As I outlined in the second reading, we have had considerable discussion with the government, and there has been agreement in relation to the public funding and disclosure provisions amendments that are included here. The government has provided further clarification for future benefit in terms of interpreting what was intended by the parliament. So, the government has indicated what they intended. Rather than me repeat it at every particular amendment, I would outline at the start, representing the views of the Liberal Party, that we agree with the intention of the amendments.

The second point I make at the outset of clause 1 is something that I referred to in the second reading, and I will briefly summarise again today; that is, I pay tribute to the Attorney-General and the former member for Davenport, who were the original negotiators in relation to this complex funding package. There is no doubting that they achieved significant progress in making what we have in South Australia a simpler system than New South Wales, but, as the proponents and practitioners have looked at the detail of what was achieved and we are looking at these amendments now, the brutal reality is that this is an extraordinarily complicated system.

We are going to have to work our way through the process as best we can not just today in terms of the legislation but in terms of trying to comply with all the requirements of the legislation between now and election day in March 2018. As I said, the brutal reality is that whoever is in government after March 2018 will need to commission a comprehensive review of the practical implications, the strengths and weaknesses of the legislation, that parties and candidates will have had to operate with in the period leading up to March 2018.

Certainly, if there is a Liberal government, we would be committed to undertaking such a review. My understanding of the government's position is that, should they be re-elected, that would be a similar position for them. There would be a role, potentially, for a parliamentary committee. There are some discussions ongoing in relation to the equivalent of a commonwealth committee which looks at the implications of election results, but there would also have to be a more formal review, which would inform the parliamentary debate and discussion. The parliamentary debate would be one which would be the vehicle through which all interests, multipartisan interests, could be involved in looking at the implications.

Clearly, some of these funding issues will have greater impact on bigger and more complicated party organisations. Nevertheless, I suspect smaller party organisations, those that are just being established, will still have considerable difficulty in complying with or understanding the implications of the legislation, and similarly Independents as well.

So, it will be important that in any review there is an appropriate vehicle for all interests, those of the bigger parties and the smaller and the newer parties and Independents, to be able to have some sort of a role in terms of what the practical implications and difficulties were of the legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Employment–1]—

Page 3, lines 4 and 5—Delete the clause

This amendment deletes the commencement clause of the bill, which currently provides that the act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. The effect of deleting the commencement clause is that the act will commence on assent. This is necessary, having regard to a number of the government's amendments that relate to funding, expenditure and disclosures and needs to be in place prior to 1 July 2017.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports the amendment.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 3 to 8 passed.

New clause 8A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Employment–1]—

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

8A—Amendment of section 42—Registration

Section 42(2)(e)—delete paragraph (e) and substitute:

(e) comprises or contains the word 'Independent'.

This is the first of a series of amendments that are based on a number of fairly straightforward provisions. If you are an Independent, you can call yourself an Independent, but if you are a registered political party you can call yourself by your registered name. However, a party should not be able to have the best of both worlds; that is, to call itself independent, and an Independent should also not be able to associate itself with a party on its how-to-vote cards.

Currently, section 42(2)(e) provides that you cannot register a political party name that contains the word 'independent' or 'independent party' or the name or abbreviation or acronym of a political party or a registered political party or something that closely resembles the name of a political party. The effect of this change is that now you will not be able to register a party name that has the word 'independent' in it. This will provide for a clearer distinction between a person who is running as an Independent and a person who has formed a political party and is running as a political party.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports the amendment. We think it is a sensible one. The existing provisions in the act are a clear intention as to the thinking of the previous parliament on the issue, and this just further tightens and clarifies the issue.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–2]—

Page 4, after line 12—Insert:

10A—Insertion of section 50A

Before section 51 insert:

50A—Interpretation

In this Division—

prescribed amount means $1,000, or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by the regulations.

For the benefit of members, I point out that I had a set of amendments; namely, set 1. I am not proceeding with those; I am proceeding with set 2. In this set of amendments there are three amendments—1, 2 and 3—that relate to the same issue, and that is the issue of candidate deposits. I have structured these amendments so that they are in the alternative.

Amendment No. 1 provides for a maximum deposit of $1,000 for both the upper house and the lower house. If that fails—as I expect it might, having discussed this with some colleagues—then my amendments Nos 2 and 3, which come later, provide for a deposit in the lower house of a maximum of $1,000 and a deposit in the upper house of an amount prescribed, which is the status quo. It is currently prescribed at $3,000. I hope the government will see fit to reduce it but, in the end, the effect of my amendments Nos 2 and 3 is to reduce the lower house deposit to $1,000.

I will speak generally now to the issue of deposits, so that I do not need to repeat myself when I get to amendments Nos 2 and 3. As I have said before, South Australia is an outlier when it comes to the deposits required for nomination to parliament. The government put through regulations after the proroguing of parliament prior to the 2014 election, which meant that there was no opportunity for the parliament to debate disallowance of regulations. We went to the 2014 election with deposits of $3,000 in the upper house and the lower house.

The deposits in the lower house of other state and territory parliaments range from $200 in the Northern Territory through to the highest state, which is $500, while the commonwealth is $1,000. The South Australian lower house deposit is six times that of the highest state and territory and three times that of our national parliament.

When it comes to the upper house, the highest state is again New South Wales, with a $500 deposit, and the commonwealth has a $2,000 deposit. At $3,000, South Australia's deposit is still $1,000 more than the nomination fee or the deposit, if you like, for the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard a brief statistical chart. It is only 10 rows by three columns and sets out the deposits, for the record, so that readers of Hansard can see what the deposits are.

Leave granted.

Candidate fees—State, Territory and Federal Parliaments

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The words 'fee' and 'deposit' are often used interchangeably. It is probably fair to say that this issue does not really bother the major parties that much because, regardless of what the fee is, they are going to get it back, as the threshold for the return of the deposit is 4 per cent of the vote. I am not aware of any circumstance where either of the major parties has not achieved at least 4 per cent in every seat. I know there are possibly some occasions when a major party might get down to single figures, but I have never seen it below 4 per cent.

On the other hand, for Independents and small parties it is actually a struggle to get more than 4 per cent in many seats. The combination of the 4 per cent threshold and deposits that are effectively out of the ballpark is a serious impediment to Independents and minor parties contesting the election. As I pointed out previously, if a small party wanted to run a candidate in 47 lower house seats and a team of three in the upper house, they are currently obliged to have $150,000 in cash or banker's cheques. That is a serious hurdle to contesting the election.

That is mainly what I want to put on the record. As I have said, my amendments provide two alternatives. This amendment limits the deposit to $1,000 in both houses. If it is unsuccessful, then I will move my amendment No. 2 to clause 11 and the consequential amendment to clause 12, which basically provide for a $1,000 maximum deposit in the lower house and the government having a discretion to prescribe a deposit in the upper house.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It should come as no surprise that the Dignity Party will support this amendment, given that we worked on it with the Greens and the Animal Justice Party. As has already been said by the Hon. Mr Parnell, $3,000 is a figure that is way out of the ballpark, not only in comparison to many other states and jurisdictions but in comparison to what many people who might wish to run for parliament, because they feel marginalised, forgotten and excluded, may be able to afford. Just to use one example, 45 per cent of people with disabilities in this country, as I am speaking, live at or below the poverty line.

To pay a $3,000 deposit would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many of those people. Given that we think that running for parliament is a good way to have your voice heard and to raise issues in your community and one that should be accessible in a democracy, a $3,000 deposit is, in our view, anti-democratic. We certainly support this amendment, given that people with disabilities and, indeed, many other minority groups are already excluded in many ways from many systems, including the electoral system. Let us not put another barrier in the way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to this particular amendment that would impose a $1,000 maximum on either the Legislative Council or the House of Assembly, the government is opposed. I will not reagitate all the reasons we went through when it was raised to $3,000 except to say that the objective behind the increase for the Legislative Council was to create a disincentive for some of the very microparties nominating candidates, in the context of concerns about preference harvesting for the Legislative Council and, if parties have a genuine support base and receive 4 per cent of the first preference votes, they will have their deposit returned.

We will not be supporting this particular amendment. I thank the honourable member for foreshadowing his further amendments, should this one fail. I can indicate that, in a perfect world, the government's policy position is for it to remain as it has been at $3,000 for both houses. I know that there have been discussions and we understand where the general will is heading and where the numbers lie: in support of the Hon. Mark Parnell's proposition for it to remain where it is for the Legislative Council but to be lowered to $1,000 for the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party position, as I indicated at the second reading, was that we would continue to support the nomination fee of $3,000 for the Legislative Council; however, as I indicated in the second reading a couple of days ago, we were prepared to look at a more sensible position in relation to lower house nomination fees. I think the point the Hon. Mr Parnell has made publicly, but also privately to me and to others, is that the notion of a minor party having to fork out $150,000 for a full team of candidates is an extraordinary ask for a minor party, even if you are confident that you are going to get 4 per cent in the vast majority of seats and get the fees back.

I think there is an argument that that is anti-democratic. That has certainly been my personal view. I remember the debate about the Legislative Council and I was, and remain, supportive of the reasons for it being in the Legislative Council but, for the reasons that I outlined in the second reading debate, we will support the alternative proposition, which is that there be $1,000 for House of Assembly nomination but that it remain at $3,000 for the Legislative Council. To that end, we will oppose this particular provision that the member is moving, but we would flag that when he comes to move his amendments later on in the bill, we will be supportive of those particular amendments.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to indicate the Australian Conservatives' position on the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment. We will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, but it is for different reasons. I think it is important to acknowledge that our party has found itself in a fortunate position financially where the $3,000 imposition across the lower house seats (all 47 of them) and then two candidates in the upper house, equalling $150,000 in order to register your candidates to stand for election, has not been something that has been a particular challenge for us, but we do acknowledge that it has been for smaller parties than ours.

We see it as almost an affront to democracy that people should not be able to run for parliament for financial reasons. They should have access to putting their name on the ballot paper to participate in our democracy and one thing we feel strongly that should not preclude them from doing so is some sort of financial imposition.

I also want to comment on the government's point, which I actually agree with, and that is that this is seen as a disincentive for what you might call crowding the Legislative Council ballot paper, for want of a better term. I would argue that the $3,000 fee is not an effective disincentive for people nominating for the Legislative Council. We saw that at the last election where the $3,000 fee was in place in the Legislative Council and yet there was still a very high number of candidates standing in the Legislative Council.

It was not quite the famous tablecloth ballot paper that we saw in New South Wales a number of years ago, but it was still a very substantial number. Yes, it was down on the previous election. I cannot recall the numbers, but I did look at it some weeks back. Yes, the number of candidates standing was down on the previous election and so you can argue that it had some effect, although if that was the reason, we do not know.

If the government was serious about that—and I am not critical; I suspect they are—I think a more effective way of doing it would be to introduce a minimum threshold. I would argue that a minimum threshold should be at a very low level, something in the order of 2 per cent, and that would certainly serve as a disincentive for having what you might call an overly large ballot paper in the Legislative Council.

To sum up, the Australian Conservatives will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments. We believe the fees are too high and they serve as an unnecessary barrier to the participation of democracy in our society.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 11.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–2]—

Page 4, after line 25—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) Section 53—after subsection (10) insert:

(11) In this section—

prescribed amount means—

(a) in the case of a candidate nominating for election as a member of the House of Assembly—$1,000, or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by the regulations; or

(b) in the case of a candidate nominated for election as a member of the Legislative Council—the amount prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

I have spoken to the issue in relation to the previous clause. This is the alternative position, and I acknowledge that the Hon. Rob Lucas has indicated that the Liberal Party will be supporting it. On the basis of contributions made by Australian Conservatives, the Nick Xenophon Team and the Dignity Party, I expect that they will be supporting it as well, so I look forward to my amendment No. 2 passing and also to the consequential amendment No. 3.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 4, after line 28—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 53A—after subsection (4) insert:

(4a) If a nomination paper lodged under subsection (2) does not fully comply with the requirement under subsection (3)(a)(ii), the relevant district returning officer must, if practicable, give the nominated candidate notice of the non-compliance sufficient to enable the candidate to fully comply with the requirement before the hour of nomination.

This amendment gives the commissioner the ability to offer candidates the opportunity to rectify any mistakes made on nomination papers. This is already done in practice but, given the potential prevalence for mistakes in garnering the details of 250 electors, if there is sufficient time to rectify the mistake the candidate should be given the opportunity.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government's support for the Hon. John Darley's amendment. A single candidate nominating in the Legislative Council needs to have their nomination papers signed by 250 electors. If a nominated candidate failed to comply with this requirement this amendment would mean that the relevant district returning officer would, if practicable, give a nominated candidate notice of their noncompliance.

Advice from the Electoral Commissioner is that, where possible, the commission endeavours to do this anyway. Appropriately though, the amendment contemplates that it will not always be practicable for the district returning officer to provide notice of the noncompliance; for example, where a candidate submits their nomination in the moments leading up to the close of nominations, the district returning officer would not be able to do that. Given that the amendment essentially provides for what happens in practice but contemplates things like the particular example I have given, the government is not opposed to this amendment and will support it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For similar reasons, the Liberal Party will support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Parnell–2]—

Page 4, after line 28—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 53A—after subsection (5) insert:

(6) In this section—

prescribed amount means—

(a) in the case of a candidate nominating for election as a member of the House of Assembly—$1,000, or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by the regulations; or

(b) in the case of a candidate nominated for election as a member of the Legislative Council—the amount prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

It is consequential; it is the same issue as the previous successful amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Darley–1]—

Page 5, lines 8 to 11—Delete the clause

The government is seeking to remove the three-word descriptor on the ballot paper for Independents. The amendment seeks to retain it. The government argues that a ballot paper is not a place to push your agenda and that the issues you stand for should have been advertised during the campaign period. However, I do not see the three-word descriptor as anything other than an identifier for voters to be able to distinguish candidates from one another. People may well forget the name, 'John Smith'; they are more likely to remember, 'John Smith, honest bloke', or, 'John Smith, works in taxation', or even, 'John Smith, purple refrigerator monkey'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment deletes clause 14 of the bill, which removes the scope for Independents to have descriptive information printed on the ballot paper next to their name. It is, in a sense, the flip side to an issue we talked about earlier today: not allowing a political party to use the word 'independent' and allowing a political party to have the best of both worlds by claiming that tag of 'independent' as well.

In many ways, Independents can now have the best of both worlds by allowing themselves to use descriptors that then tag them with a particular issue or particular policy position. It is the government's view that if that is what an Independent wants to do then they have the right to register as a political party, but if an Independent truly wants to be an Independent they can use the word 'independent' to describe themselves.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We do see this as different to the earlier issue that we have addressed in the committee stage, and the Liberal Party will support the amendment. This particular provision in the act was the result of a previous debate and a compromise. There was almost unlimited capacity in the past. There was a discussion and a debate when this bill was last opened, or when the act was last opened, and the compromise position is essentially what exists there now, that is, a three-word descriptor plus 'Independent', being 'Independent Save the River Murray' or 'Independent Lower Taxes' or 'Independent' whatever it might happen to be.

We see this as different to the earlier issue, where if you are a registered political party you cannot seek to portray yourself as being or having 'independent' in your name. On the basis that this was, in our view anyway, a compromise negotiated position last time and, secondly, on the basis that we think it is not an unreasonable position for an Independent to be able to have a short descriptor to indicate what their cause is or what their view is on particular issues, we therefore will support the amendment of the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is a tricky one, but to put the honourable member out of his misery, the Greens will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Not me.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: You said you would.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Three words, I support.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is the three words.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It is.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We are good; the united force of the Greens. As part of the preparation for the debate on this issue, I—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Did you consult your colleague?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I consulted.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Good.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —I downloaded all the names of the parties and the candidates that contested the 2006 election, which was a five-word election; the 2010 election, which was a five-word election; and the 2014 election, which was a three-word election, if I can describe them as such. I said that it is a tricky issue. The vast majority of the Independent candidates who have chosen to use a descriptor, whether it was five or three words, were mostly fairly accurate, I think. You could tell what they stood for. 'Independent Hemp Help End Marijuana Prohibition': as far as I know that was the cause those people were espousing.

The trickiness has been that there is a minority of people whose descriptor has not been as accurate, for example, 'Independent for Social and Environmental Justice'. Well, I am yet to meet a person who is outright opposed to justice, whether it is social or environmental. 'Independent Ralph Clarke Buy Back ETSA': I think we know where Ralph stood on that issue, that is pretty straightforward. That was the 2006 election.

In the 2010 election, there was again 'Independent Social Environmental and Economic Justice'. Again, I have yet to meet someone who is not in favour of those concepts, so it does not really help candidates a great deal, whereas when it comes to 'Independent Trevor Grace Save the Unborn', I do not think anyone was in any doubt about where he stood. We all saw his graphic posters on the stobie poles.

When we get to the 2014 election and we look at the Independent candidates who have been able to use three descriptive words, the bulk of them were accurate and reflected the politics of the people behind them. 'Independent Animal Justice' was one, and they have now formed a party, but that was pretty accurate; another was 'Independent Legal Voluntary Euthanasia'. But the tricky ones have been things like 'Independent Your Voice Matters'. Again, I am yet to meet a person here who is prepared to say publicly that they do not think that their constituents' voices matter. So, I am not sure that 'Independent Your Voice Matters' adds a great deal. 'Independent Environment Education Disability' does not help a great deal. 'Independent Powerful Communities' is a nice label but is not necessarily that helpful.

One of the reasons that I and my colleague Tammy are keen to support the three-word descriptor is that, whilst it is not before us at present, there is another electoral bill that is coming along, and that bill deals with preference harvesting and the way votes are tallied and preferences allocated. It could all go pear shaped, as it has in previous years, but my hope and belief is that some form of voting that does away with group voting tickets will come in. What that means is that the incentive for people to set up front parties or to be merely a preference harvesting machine will be reduced. I am hoping we will end up with a pool of genuine Independents who will genuinely, in the three words available to them, describe what it is they are standing for.

It is a bit of a roundabout way of saying it, but I wanted to put on the record that we are supporting the Hon. John Darley's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Very briefly, I must say this is also something that has been somewhat conflicting for the Australian Conservatives, and I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has articulated quite well—

An honourable member: Does Brokey agree with you though?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, there has been a big divide in the party! That was a joke, by the way—for Hansard. There is no divide whatsoever, none at all. I have totally lost what I was going to say now. I think there have been attempts—as I think the Hon. Mr Parnell outlined quite well—to use what are essentially party names under an Independent banner. I think a couple of the examples given exemplified that, such as 'Uniting Communities' or 'Your Voice Matters', for example. I think people might generally associate those descriptors more with a political party than an Independent as such. So, it is somewhat conflicting for us, but nonetheless in our robust internal party debate we did decide to support the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Dignity Party opposes this amendment. We can definitely see multiple sides to the debate, and far be it from me to stand in the way of 'purple monkey dishwasher', but ultimately the decision we have reached is that if we support the government amendment to stop people using the word 'independent' to cloud their allegiances or their views, then we also do not want to create a situation where they could use those same words on the other end of their name. So, for the sake of consistency we do not support this amendment.

Clause negatived.

New clause 14A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, after line 11—Insert:

14A—Amendment of section 66—Preparation of certain electoral material

(1) Section 66(2)(f)—after subparagraph (i) insert:

(ia) by use of a word or set of words that comprises or contains the word 'Independent' and—

(A) the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a parliamentary party or a registered political party; or

(B) matter that so nearly resembles the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a registered political party that the matter is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name or that abbreviation or acronym; or

(2) Section 66(2)(f)(ii)—delete '(2)(e) or'

(3) Section 66(2)—after paragraph (f) insert:

(fa) must not identify a candidate by use of the word 'Independent' if the candidate is endorsed by a registered political party; and

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is consequential on the earliest issue which we voted on, which was supported by the committee. We supported it and we again support this amendment. We see this as part of the package and consequential on the earlier vote.

New clause inserted.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Employment–1]—

Page 5, lines 29 to 33 [clause 16, inserted subsection (2)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) the issue of declaration voting papers to an elector who appears personally before an officer in South Australia other than at a polling booth must only occur at times determined by the Electoral Commissioner that fall within the 5 days before polling day;

This amendment restructures the proposed new section 73(2)(b) of the Electoral Act as set out in the bill, which is the provision that restricts pre-poll voting to five days prior to polling day. This amendment restructures the provision so that it is more clear in its effect and ensures that the requirement that declaration voting papers are only issued in the five days before polling day does not apply to declaration voting papers issued at mobile polling booths, including those in remote subdivisions. This responds to a concern that was raised by the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are two issues and this is a little bit complicated. Can I address the substantive issue in relation to this particular clause. This is the fundamental issue that I addressed in the second reading debate. Essentially, the current situation which was arrived at after previous discussions and compromises was that the pre-poll centres for the next election, on the advice of the Electoral Commission, will essentially be operating for a period of nine or 10 business days, or 12 days, that is, the Monday on the week before the election (not the week immediately preceding it but the week before the last week) will be when the pre-poll centres will open, so that is essentially 12 days prior to election day.

Given that there is a public holiday in the last week on the Monday, it essentially means, under the current arrangements, if there are no changes, pre-poll centres will be operational for five days in the second last week and four days in the last week, so nine business days or working days is the current arrangement. The Liberal Party's position is quite clear. We support that position; we do not think that is unreasonable, for the reasons I outlined in the second reading.

There are many people for whom the notion of, in 40º heat, having to queue for an hour or an hour and a half in queues of 100 or 200 metres on election day, because of ill health, disability or a variety of other issues, is too onerous a task for them. There are clearly other reasons why currently we allow people, because they have to work or are travelling, etc., to vote at pre-poll centres or through postal voting. We think that is a reasonable position.

I think in some other jurisdictions, possibly federally (although I will not swear to this), that pre-poll issue might be even longer than that—it might be a period of three weeks or something, particularly if you have a long campaign. But that is not the case in South Australia. We have had advice from the Electoral Commission that, given close of nominations, when you have to do various things, with the work they have to do, the earliest they will have pre-poll centres, if all the printing gets done, will be on the Monday 12 days out. If the printing is held up or something like that it might not be until the Tuesday, but they are currently planning on 12 days out, or nine business or working days for pre-poll centres. We think that is a reasonable proposition. It is the current arrangement, and therefore we will be strongly supporting that.

The government is wanting to further restrict that. The government, in essence, is saying that it should be only five days rather than the 12 days. There is an interesting legal issue of whether or not, because of the public holiday, it will be only four days. The government's advice to various members is that, no, it will still be five days. I am not sure whether that means the Electoral Commissioner will decide to operate on the public holiday, or there seems to be an interpretation under the Acts Interpretation Act that you can go back to the previous Friday, but in essence it would be five days as opposed to the nine days that has been talked about.

We think that is unreasonable and should not be supported, and we do not intend to support it. That is the substantive issue that has been moved in relation to clause 16. However, this amendment of the government is really a technical amendment. In essence, it says that, if the committee and the parliament ultimately agree to restricting it to five days, then the five days should not apply to mobile polling booths and a variety of other options that are available.

From that viewpoint, whilst we will be arguing against the whole clause, we will support this particular amendment; that is, if we do lose—and we hope we do not lose—the argument against the whole clause and this were to become a five-day provision, it does not make sense to restrict mobile polling booths and other options like that to the five-day provision. For that reason, we see this as a technical amendment. We will support the technical amendment, but then we will argue against the whole clause.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to put the Greens' position on the record: if the pre-poll period was only five days, then it does make sense to allow some of those remote mobile polling booths to operate for a longer period. The tyranny of distance means that they would physically have difficulty in a short period getting around to all the places they need to get. In relation to the substantive issue, the Greens accept the status quo, and that is, effectively, the two-week pre-poll period.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Australian Conservatives also take the view that we will support the status quo. There is an interesting question here with respect to a democracy where we have compulsory voting. If we do have compulsory voting, it does not seem unreasonable to give people a reasonable amount of time to fulfil their obligations. Two weeks is not unreasonable, in our view. With 10 business days there is the complication of the public holiday, but our interpretation is that an extra day would be added so that we would have 10 full days in which to fulfil that function.

I suspect that we will be back here in a few years redebating this point as our federal parliament examines the issue of electronic voting and other options, so it remains to be seen how that unfolds. We support the status quo as well.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman, I will definitely be supporting the status quo.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Likewise, the Dignity Party supports the status quo. Given that many points of this bill try to make voting more accessible and easily understandable to everyone in the community, we think it makes sense to give people as much time to engage in that system.

It is all very well and good to set up an easily understandable and accessible system, but if people cannot actually get there on time and cast their vote, either because they have work or family commitments which mean they cannot get there within a five-day period, or they might even have a disability or be elderly and so on and not have access to independent transport, there are many barriers that people already face. We will support the status quo; that is, two weeks in this respect.

I also make the point that, whether pre-polling is open for five days or two weeks or some other period of time, we also need to work to ensure that these pre-poll centres are accessible to everyone in our community—be that people with disabilities, parents with prams and so on. I am not talking about assisted access either where someone can help you get in. Near enough is not good enough when it comes to access.

I am also not talking about the situation that we currently see happen sometimes, too, which is the ballot paper being carried outside, which comes with some pretty obvious not only dignity related concerns but also privacy concerns. So, we maintain the status quo in terms of the two-week period and also hope that, whatever the period is, the pre-polling experience will be autonomously accessible to all in the very near future.

Amendment carried; clause as amended negatived.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 6, lines 11 to 14—Delete the clause

This is in the same package of amendments as the most recent issue we have discussed, but let me explain it. As a result of the long discussion when this act was last opened, there was a compromise position that was arrived at, which is the status quo. We are going to support that and urge the committee to support the status quo. Under the old arrangements that were stamped out—mainly the big parties but anyone could do it—we had a situation where we were allowed under the act to actually write to people or send them material and say, 'If you want a postal vote, come back and contact the Liberal Party'—or the Labor Party.

Then, they would come back and contact us and we would know that Mr Smith was looking for a postal vote. We would then send them or deliver them the official postal vote application form from the Electoral Commission. They would fill it in. If they needed a witness, you would witness it, and you would be aware that John Smith was lodging a postal vote and have the opportunity to give them how-to-vote material, etc.

As a result of discussions last time, that practice was stamped out. So, the status quo now uses an entirely reasonable proposition from that viewpoint; that is, parties can no longer do that. What they are entitled to do, and indeed what any individual can do, is give people an official application form for a postal vote or a declaration vote. If it is filled in, it cannot be returned to an individual or a political party. It has to be returned to the Electoral Commission.

So, there is nothing that prevents a political party or an Independent from providing copies of the Electoral Commission's official application form, which must be returned to the Electoral Commission, for a postal vote or a declaration vote. What the government is seeking to do—and this is to disturb the status quo—is to say, 'Well, you can't even do that.'

If this amendment from the government was to be successful, it does raise the rather bizarre prospect in which, for example, if someone contacted you and said, 'I'm interested in getting a postal vote. What do I do?' and you, by electronic means, just happen to forward the electronic version from the Electoral Commission site to that individual, you would be committing an offence because you have distributed by electronic means the Electoral Commission's official form.

If you actually had an official postal vote application form from the Electoral Commission and you handed it to your electorate office (or whatever it is) and said, 'You have to send that off to the Electoral Commission, if you want one,' then you would be committing an offence—that is if this amendment is successful. That just seems to be an entirely bizarre proposition. We have a position that has now taken it out of the hands of the political parties.

If an individual or a political party still wants to provide a service to people to say, 'Hey, if you are travelling or if you are going to be going overseas'—or whatever it is—'you have to fill out a particular form, send it to the Electoral Commission and they will then send the vote to you, if you are eligible, and you will have to fill it in,' then that is a matter entirely between the individual elector and the Electoral Commission.

The political party or the individual does not know that that has occurred because that is an issue between the individual and the Electoral Commission. Unless the individual makes that known to a political party or a candidate, that is entirely an issue between the elector and the Electoral Commission. That is the status quo. We think that is a reasonable proposition and should be supported as the status quo.

As I said, if we do get to the situation where the government's amendment is successful, we open up the bizarre proposition that any assistance you may provide by way of even forwarding an electronic version of the postal vote application form from the Electoral Commission website (or whatever it is) to a constituent who says, 'Hey, I'm travelling; what do I need to do?' you would be committing an offence. I think it does not make much sense at all to go to that particular extent. For those reasons, we support the status quo and, therefore, do not support this proposition from the government in the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government's opposition to this particular amendment. I know this provision was also the subject of some debate and amendment when we canvassed these matters in a previous parliament with the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013. There, the government proposed to amend section 74A so that only the Electoral Commission can distribute declaration voting paper application forms.

At that time, as I think has been outlined, there were amendments that resulted in the current position where any person can distribute the declaration voting papers, providing the application is in the prescribed form and that it is stated on the front that it must be returned directly to the Electoral Commissioner and that no additional information or matter appears on the form or on the reverse side of the form.

Clause 18 of this bill, again, proposes to amend this section to provide that only the Electoral Commissioner can distribute such papers. So, we are being consistent in our view and what we are putting forward. I appreciate that the opposition is also being consistent in their view and what they are putting forward in prosecuting this.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I support the status quo and will be supporting the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a question for the mover. As I understand the Hon. Rob Lucas, he effectively said that a member of parliament, for example, could not keep a stock of postal vote applications in their office to hand to constituents and they could not email an electronic copy of a postal vote application form. If someone emailed a member of parliament and said, 'I'm interested in postal voting. How do I do it?' and the member of parliament or their staff emailed the person back and said, 'You have to go through the Electoral Commission website—here's the link,' would that infringe this clause, or would it be the physical sending of the application form that is the problem?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Parnell is a lawyer. I am a mere non-lawyer, but my reading is that you could certainly refer the constituent to the Electoral Commission's website, but I suspect that if you went to the position of actually providing the link, that would be an interesting legal question. The act provides:

In this section—

distribute an application form includes make the form available (including in electronic form) to other persons.

I think that you lawyers, as opposed to we non-lawyers, may well argue that by providing the link you have provided it in an electronic form.

Other lawyers, even more clever lawyers, might argue that you have not actually provided it by electronic means. I think they are the sorts of issues that are just ridiculous, frankly. This is an application form for a postal vote or a declaration vote, it is official and it does not go to a party. If all you are doing for a constituent is saying to them, 'Here's the form. You can complete it, fill it in, send it off to the Electoral Commission and go your hardest,' that is an entirely reasonable proposition. To actually make it an offence, with a maximum penalty of $5,000, to provide that sort of service is, in my view, bizarre and nonsensical and does not deserve support.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the member for his answer. I will confess to not having a postal vote application form in front of me, but does the member know if they need to be witnessed or if it is just a question of the voter themselves declaring their eligibility to vote by post? The reason I am asking is that if there was a witness involved and it was the member of parliament's electorate office that was providing the witness service, then I can see that there might be an issue there. Does the member know what the situation is? Do you need to get these forms witnessed?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that may well be something for the government advisers. I do not have a copy in front of me. Certainly, in days gone by—and I am talking some years ago—you did have to have it witnessed. In terms of a distributed application form, given that you are not physically there with the person, if you have provided it by electronic means or if you have handed it to somebody, it is unlikely that you are going to be there to witness it anyway.

The practice under the current arrangements is that, in my political party for example, a member may well send a letter by physical means which says, 'There's an election coming up. It's very important that you vote. The government's terrible'—or the government's great, depending on which particular party you happen to be in—'and by the way, if you're not going to be here and if you qualify for a declaration vote'—or whatever it is—'here's an application form which you have to send to the Electoral Commission.'

That would go to John Smith at his house and he would then handle the process from there. If it does require a witness, his partner or next-door neighbour or whoever is more likely to be the witness because we, as a political party, no longer have the capacity to know which 1,000 or 2,000 of the 25,000 electors are going to be applying for a declaration vote. We are not in a position to provide that service.

Under the old arrangement, which has now been stamped out, when they came back to the Liberal Party we would ring them up and say, 'Do you need it? We will bring it around to you, and if you need someone to assist you, we can do that.' That has all been cut out. We have an entirely reasonable and defensible proposition which does not favour any particular political party. It is, in essence, an assistance to allow people to know that they are entitled to a vote and this is what they have to do if they want to participate in the process of voting on election day.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I might be able to enlighten everyone a little on the application form for a postal vote. Electoral Regulations 2009, schedule 1, which includes form 6, is the schedule that has the form for the application for a postal vote. Down the bottom of the application form it needs both the signature or mark of the elector and the signature of an authorised witness.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Philosophically, the Australian Conservatives would be sympathetic to the government's position, which is essentially to remove political parties from the process of distributing what you might call some of the formalities with respect to voting. Generally speaking, we would be sympathetic to that because where political parties can, to the extent of their legal capacity, no doubt they will exert their influence to their advantage.

Where the Australian Conservatives part company with the government is in having what is not an insubstantial penalty at all for what may be just a simple error. As the Hon. Mr Lucas has outlined succinctly, you might have a situation where a more well-meaning, unaware member of parliament simply forwards the form to an individual and then that could land them in a very significant situation with a substantial penalty of up to $5,000. We cannot support that and for that reason we will be supporting the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have another question for the minister. Are the application forms available at post offices? Where do people normally get them from? The Hon. Rob Lucas has said that they used to get them from parliamentary offices or electorate offices but where else do you go? Do you go to a post office or a government agency?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I may be an expert on many things, but exactly where these forms are located at any given time I am afraid I cannot enlighten him. Certainly, as we have discussed, they are available through requests of the Electoral Commission, but whether other government outlets have them, I do not know. I can remember post offices, certainly in the past, having forms to enrol to vote, but I am just not sure from where one might pick up forms outside the South Australian Electoral Commission.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will ask another question. This is one of these rare occasions when the power of debate potentially influences an outcome because I must admit our inclination was not to support this amendment. What I really want to hear from the government is: what electoral advantage is there in the remnant involvement of political parties in postal vote applications? Given what the Hon. Rob Lucas said—he said there is no political advantage—I would like to know, is there still a political advantage? Our view would be that if this regime does provide political advantage then we want parties out of it altogether. However, if there is no political advantage then I am wondering what the fuss is about.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, under the old regime, which applied before the last election, there were very distinct political advantages. As a party you would have the forms returned to you and then you and only that party would know who was postal voting, so you could tailor your specific earlier campaign for the postal votes. You could, in essence, target your campaign to a class of voters you thought were more likely to vote for you to encourage them to postal vote.

Everyone would know who was getting the postal vote but you could target your campaign to those who you considered more likely to vote for you via whatever method you use as a party to do so. There is a possibility for a campaign advantage, possibly, off the top of my head. Those who run parties are very clever and wily people, in my experience, and would, no doubt, find further campaign advantage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would like to make some concluding remarks on that, given that we are in the business of trying to influence the Hon. Mr Parnell. I would not downplay the significance of parliamentary debate because I am sure there are many occasions when the Hon. Mr Parnell comes into the chamber with an open mind, as indeed we do, and listens to the arguments and then makes a mature judgement.

On this issue, the Hon. Mr Maher nailed it on the head. He is a former party operative, as indeed I am. In days gone by, prior to the new practice, there was a potentially significant advantage because they were coming back to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. They would have teams of people who would then go back, as I indicated earlier, and knock on the door of John Smith and say, 'You've asked for an application form. Here is the official one. Fill it in and we will assist you with that by witnessing it. You send it off. We therefore know. We give you a how-to-vote-card. We give you some Liberal Party'—or Labor Party—'material and all of that.'

That has all gone. This is now an entirely reasonable proposition that basically says that now—which was as a result of a compromise after the last debate—you can circulate the official form, and that is it. You do not know, as I said. If a letter is sent out to 15,000 households, for example, in an average electorate (or whatever it might be, but an average electorate) you do not know of those 15,000 residences that 1,000 or 1,500 send them off to the Electoral Commissioner.

You have no idea in relation to it unless they take—and some people still do; they ring up and say, 'Hey, I'm a Liberal Party person. I'm going away. How am I meant to vote in such-and-such an electorate?' The same service would be provided in the Labor Party, and I suspect the same thing with the Greens if someone rang them up and asked, 'How am I going to vote? I'm going to be away.'

We think it is an entirely reasonable proposition and we hope that the weight of the substantive argument in the committee stage might convince the Hon. Mr Parnell, and if not the Hon. Mr Parnell the Hon. Ms Franks, to support the issue.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: At the risk of giving the Hon. Rob Lucas a big head over this, his arguments have been quite compelling, so the Greens will be supporting the Liberal position.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 19 to 27 passed.

New clause 27A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Darley–1]—

Page 11, after line 3—Insert:

27A—Amendment of section 112A—Special provision relating to how-to-vote cards

Section 112A—after subsection (5) insert:

(5a) If the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that a how-to-vote card has been distributed in contravention of this section, the Electoral Commissioner may request that the person who authorised the card do either or both of the following:

(a) immediately cease distributing, or causing or permitting the distribution of, the how-to-vote card;

(b) publish a retraction in specified terms and a specified manner and form,

(and in proceedings for an offence against this section arising from the distribution of the how-to-vote card, the authorised person's response to a request under this subsection will be taken into account in assessing any penalty to which the person may be liable).

This amendment will give the Electoral Commissioner the power to deal with misleading how-to-vote cards in the same manner that they can deal with misleading advertising. I believe this may have been overlooked when the provisions regarding how-to-vote cards were initially introduced. The act has provisions relating to how-to-vote cards but the Electoral Commissioner cannot take any immediate action. My amendment will give the commissioner the ability to deal with misleading how-to-vote cards.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will support this amendment. As the mover has outlined, this will allow the Electoral Commissioner, where the Electoral Commissioner is of the view that the how-to-vote card has been distributed in contravention of section 112A, to request that the person cease distributing it and/or issue a retraction, and for that reason the government will be supporting it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports the amendment.

New clause inserted.

New clause 27B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Employment–1]—

Page 11, after line 3—Insert:

27B—Amendment of section 112B—Certain descriptions not to be used

(1) Section 112B(1)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) by use of the word or a set of words containing the word 'Independent' and—

(i) the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a parliamentary party or a registered political party; or

(ii) matter that so nearly resembles the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a registered political party that the matter is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name or that abbreviation or acronym; or

(2) Section 112B(1)(b)—delete '(2)(e) or'

(3) Section 112B—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A person must not publish or distribute an electoral advertisement or a how-to-vote card that identifies a candidate by use of the word 'Independent' if the candidate is endorsed by a registered political party.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(4) Section 112B(2)—delete 'Subsection (1) applies' and substitute:

Subsections (1) and (1a) apply

(5) Section 112B(3)—delete 'Subsection (1) does' and substitute:

Subsections (1) and (1a) do

This change is made for the same reason as an amendment much earlier on this morning, amendment No. 2 standing in my name. It follows from the change made to that amendment. The propositions underpinning this amendment are that if you are an Independent, you call yourself an Independent, and if you are a registered political party, you can call yourself by that name, but a party should not have the benefit of using the word 'independent'. I think it is consequential, almost, from the amendment that we passed before.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports it as it is consequential on two earlier votes.

New clause inserted.

Clause 28.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 11, lines 4 to 6—Delete the clause

This is a very simple amendment. It is essentially about the extent of the penalty that you think should apply. The government is seeking to increase the penalty to $50,000. On my reading, in the current provisions, if the offender is a natural person it is $5,000. If I am reading it correctly, the government is increasing that penalty from $5,000 for a natural person to $50,000 as a maximum penalty, and for a body corporate from $25,000 to $50,000. We think the existing penalties are significant, and we therefore do not see the reason or the need for the very significant increase in the penalty to $50,000.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: As a party, the Greens have been the victim of grossly misleading advertising in the past. I do not think we have ever been the perpetrator, and I would certainly be most surprised if we ever were. The consequences of misleading behaviour can be dire and long lasting—we are talking about eight-year terms in the upper house of a state parliament—so the Greens will be supporting the increased penalties.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will come as no surprise that we will be opposing the amendment in favour of the increased penalties. The intent is not just a punitive intent to punish someone by the increased penalties, but also that it might act as a deterrent in relation to anyone who might be considering engaging in conduct that might slight the Greens or any other candidate or political party.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is one of those ones that we have had debate on internally; not a split, but a debate. Again, one can see the government's intention here. I think, as the Hon. Mr Parnell said, that the implications of false or misleading advertising can be very significant in the light of eight-year terms or in the case of close elections. Our view in the end is that $50,000 is a very substantial fine, and we are not able to support such a high level. The current level is probably too low, but in our view, $50,000 is too high. We will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

Clause thus negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): We now come to two amendments, one in the name of the Hon. Mr Darley—Amendment No. 4 [Darley–1]. There is also amendment No. 6 [Employment–1], which is on the same issue. Both would insert a new clause 28A. The Hon. Mr Darley's amendment was lodged first, so I give him the call now.

New clause 28A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Darley–1]—

Page 11, after line 6—Insert:

28A—Insertion of section 115A

After section 115 insert:

115A—Automated political calls

(1) A person must not make, or cause or permit the making of, an automated political call unless the following statements are made at the beginning of the call:

(a) the name and address (not being a post office box) of the person who is making, or who authorises the making of, the call;

(b) if the call is authorised for a registered political party or a candidate endorsed by a registered political party—the name of the political party;

(c) if the advertisement is authorised for a relevant third party—the name of the relevant third party.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a natural person—$5,000;

(b) if the offender is a body corporate—$10,000.

(2) In this section—

automated political call means a telephone call consisting of a pre-recorded electoral advertisement;

relevant third party means an organisation or other person, other than a registered political party, candidate or natural person, who—

(a) as at the day on which the automated political call to which subsection (1) relates is made, intends to spend more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements—

(i) if the call is made in an election period—during that election period; or

(ii) in any other case—during the election period for the next general election due to occur; or

(b) spent more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements during the election period for the general election immediately preceding the day on which the automated political call to which subsection (1) relates is made.

My amendment deals with robocalls–

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I cannot hear the Hon. Mr Darley and I suspect other members cannot as well, so I give the call to the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My amendment deals with robocalls. As outlined in my second reading, robocalls are no different to other forms of political advertising and there should be a requirement that it be disclosed as such. My amendment provides that disclosure should be at the beginning of an automated political call. This brings requirements in line with other political advertising such as TV, radio or printed advertisements where there are disclosure requirements.

With disclosure at the beginning of the call, voters can decide if they want to listen to the rest of the message or not. I do have some concern that if disclosure were to occur anywhere within the call rather than at the beginning then people may present this information after five or 10 seconds of silence. This silence could be perceived as the call ending and the recipient may hang up before the disclosure is made.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing the Hon. John Darley's amendment but the next amendment deals with this particular matter. I think the Hon. Rob Lucas, in his second reading speech, canvassed this quite well and made the analogy with other forms of electronic election advertising, where a radio or television advertisement requires authorisation, generally by the party official, at the end of the advertisement. In opposing the Hon. John Darley's amendment in preference to the government's amendment, we will be treating this the same as other forms of electronic advertising, that is, requiring an authorisation at the end of the advertisement.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's version of this provision. What it has in common with the government's version is that there will be some disclosure. The main question before us is: is the disclosure going to be at the start of the message or at the end? I do not accept the analogy with TV and radio ads for one simple reason: when you are watching the television and you see a political advertisement, you know that it is going to go for 30 seconds, or it might go for a minute, and you are very unlikely to turn the television off and therefore miss the credits at the end. You know it is going to be short and you know what it is about. You may have guessed who it is from, by the content, but you are not going to turn the television off. Similarly with the radio, you know it is going to be a short message, you might yell at the radio, you might growl or whatever, but you are not going to turn the radio off.

A robocall is entirely different. You are holding a receiver in your hand and you are completely in control. You have heard some of the message and you hang up before it is finished. The Hon. John Darley mentioned that he got a call—and I do not want to misrepresent him—and I think he said he was not quite sure who it was from because he hung up before the call had finished. I think that is what people are going to do. If you are a political party putting stuff out there that is very contentious and hard-hitting, and you want to give the impression that it is a real nurse or a real tradie or whatever, you might make that message long enough that very few people wait until the end. You have it within your control to hang up.

It is a similar philosophy that applies with online ads and videos. Various rules say that you have to get your main message in the first 10 seconds because they know that most people hit 'skip' or 'end' or they stop hearing it. They will not hear who it is from. So, I do not think it is the same for robocalls as it is for TV or radio ads. The Hon. John Darley's amendment says that at the start it will be, 'Hi, I’m nurse Betty, this is a call on behalf of' Jay Weatherill, Steven Marshall, or whoever it might be, and you will know up-front exactly where that call is coming from.

Robocalls are not popular in the community. They are less popular because people do not even know who they are from and where they have come from. I think the Hon. John Darley's amendment gives people the best opportunity to know where calls come from. They can still decide whether to hear the end of it or not. Regardless of how they vote, they might want to hear what the other side is saying about an issue that they care about, but at least everyone will know because it will be right up-front who the call is coming from and who it has been authorised by.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Before I give the Hon. Mr Hood the call, it has been suggested to me that I should get the minister to move his new clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Employment–1]—

Page 11, after line 6—Insert:

28A—Insertion of section 115A

After section 115 insert:

115A—Automated political calls

(1) A person must not make, or cause or permit the making of, a telephone call consisting of a pre-recorded electoral advertisement unless, immediately after that part of the call consisting of the advertisement, the following statements are made:

(a) the name and address (not being a post office box) of the person who is making, or who authorises the making of, the call;

(b) if the call is authorised for a registered political party or a candidate endorsed by a registered political party—the name of the political party;

(c) if the call is authorised for a relevant third party—the name of the relevant third party.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a natural person—$5,000;

(b) if the offender is a body corporate—$10,000.

(2) In this section—

relevant third party means an organisation or other person, other than a registered political party, candidate or natural person, who—

(a) as at the day on which the automated political call to which subsection (1) relates is made, intends to spend more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements—

(i) if the call is made in an election period—during that election period; or

(ii) in any other case—during the election period for the next general election due to occur; or

(b) spent more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements during the election period for the general election immediately preceding the day on which the automated political call to which subsection (1) relates is made.

and to make a related amendment to the Local Government Act 1999

I have spoken on our preference for the government's amendment over the Hon. John Darley's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: A question for the government (although I am aware that we are not dealing with its amendment first) as to how these robocalls work: do they contact mobile phone numbers or is it only landline numbers? Are we aware?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My involvement in campaigning predated the use of robocalls, so I am not sure, but I can find that out and come back with an answer. I am not sure whether mobile numbers are included. If they are in a data set and are able to, they may be, but I do not know.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his answer and thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his clarification. The reason for my question was that, with the rapid decline in landlines, I do not think it will be long before robocalls, if they are only going to landlines, fade out of practice because there simply will not be any landlines left in the not too distant future. Given that it seems that they go to mobile phones as well, the Australian Conservatives are inclined to support the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment. As the Hon. Mr Parnell said, these things are very unpopular, they can be manipulated and we should be doing what we can to control them, reasonably.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I outlined in the second reading debate, the Liberal Party supports the premise behind the amendment being moved to provide greater regulation of automated political calls, but that we support the position now reflected in the government amendment. So, therefore we will not support the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment but will support the alternate amendment from the government.

In our view—and I understand it is not the view of some others—we should be treating this sort of electoral advertisement (and both amendments refer to the fact that this is a pre-recorded electoral advertisement) in the same way as other electoral advertisements, that is, television and radio. In those television and radio advertisements the authorisation is required to be put at the end of the advertisement, and we see no difference in relation to this.

I put on the public record that this was an interesting debate, and I guess, for those practitioners in the field, we had a discussion to say that maybe this amendment ought to be broadened to include digital advertising, because if we are talking about where the whole world is moving, it has moved already and will continue to move in terms of digital advertising. You cannot open up a Facebook page, a Twitter account, or whatever it is, without seeing somebody advertising something, including at certain times in an electoral cycle political parties (or governments for that matter) advertising their wares.

The issue was then: should there not be an authorisation for those? In practice there should be, but we were told, when we looked at amendments in relation to that, that there is already an existing provision in the Electoral Act that requires authorisation at the end of the advertisement. I am not sure that is entirely known to all practitioners in the field, so it is probably a salutary lesson for those who are involving themselves in the art of digital advertising that those requirements, based on the legal advice we have been given, are the same for digital advertising as they are for television, radio and print advertising. Everyone ought to be aware of that. That is a little bit of a segue. To conclude, we will support the government's amendment and will not support the amendment of the Hon. Mr Darley.