Bills

Electoral (Control of Corflutes) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 5 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete 'Without limiting subsection (1)(e) but' and substitute:

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, but without limiting subsection (1)(e) and

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, we believe that is actually consequential to an amendment that you have had passed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is it? Good; I rest my case.

The CHAIR: According to the Black Rod you can rest your case.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 13 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(a)(i)]—Delete 'on behalf' and substitute 'with the consent'

I spoke about this a little bit in my second reading remarks. This deals with that issue I spoke of earlier where there is a scenario that could exist where one party seeks to put out negative materials masquerading as another political party's materials and that could be seen to fill their permissible number of corflutes or posters. This amendment would actually require the consent of the candidate so that we can make sure that practice does not occur. It is really just a safeguard.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I have some questions in regard to this amendment. We do not necessarily support the change because we have concerns that 'with the consent' could be misused as well. From your reading and your, I guess, advice, could that be used by third parties such as unions or other groups with the consent of the member for a particular seat?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I do not think there would be anything to stop a candidate from providing their consent for someone to put up materials on their behalf, but that would, of course, count towards the number of materials they would have at a relevant polling place. That is my understanding of how that would work in practice. In terms of how the consent would be obtained and so on, we do not speak to that in our amendment. It could be done through some sort of form or something like that that a candidate is required to fill out to make it clear that they have authorised the corflute going up.

The concern we have with the way the law is currently written—'on behalf of'—is that someone could say, 'I'm doing this on behalf of so-and-so candidate', and it is difficult to confirm whether or not that is the case. So we just wanted to provide that extra layer of protection.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From our point of view, we have the same interpretation as the Hon. Robert Simms, that 'on behalf of' does not necessarily apply any sort of consent. For example, if the Liberal Party in the by-election had 12 corflutes allowed within 50 metres of a polling booth and a third party put up a sign saying, 'The Liberals, not as terrible as they used to be,' or something like that, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that could conceivably count towards the limit of 12 that they are allowed, even though they would not wish for them. With the idea of 'with the consent of' it takes that possibility away. Like the Hon. Robert Simms, I now rest my case.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 15 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(a)(ii)]—Delete '6' and substitute '12'

That is self-explanatory; it is doubling the number of corflutes on polling day. We were concerned that six might be too prohibitive, particularly if you had some large polling places, and we are of the view that it should be doubled to ensure that candidates and political parties can have a decent presence on the election day itself.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: As a party we would prefer to stay at six versus 12 but we understand the government has indicated its support for this. We do not think this is a particularly Green amendment for you, Mr Simms, going from six to 12, but I appreciate that the main intention of this bill is to ensure that the majority of corflutes on Stobie poles and other areas are removed. With that, and given the government support, I would like it noted for the record that we would like to see as minimal a number of corflutes as possible.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be supporting this amendment. I think similar amendments flow from this one and others up until other amendments that replace six for 12. We are persuaded by—I think the Hon. Robert Simms mentioned perhaps in the second reading that there are polling booths that have a number of different entrances; schools and others will have different entrances before you get to the polling booth entrance itself. In terms of Green credentials, I am sure we might even see the Greens having their posters on some sort of hemp fabric or something else in the future.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to confirm for the record—and I will deal with this when I speak to my amendment, and I appreciate the outcome has already been decided, but I will still deal with it now. When we say under either scenario 12, that is in an instance where you have a party that is running a candidate in a lower house seat and an upper house seat, a total of 24 that can actually be displayed at that booth.

There is no requirement that the 12 that are for the lower house candidate—there is no prescription around what they are to contain, so there is nothing actually preventing all 24 of the corflutes, if the party chooses to indeed take 24. It seems like a bit of overkill but if you had 24 at a booth there is nothing in there that would actually require the 12 to be for an individual candidate running in the lower house and not just for the party that they are representing.

You could have 24 generic corflutes that advocate for the election of a person to that party at that booth. There is nothing requiring that 12 of them have the individual who is running for that lower house seat on that material. I suppose that goes to the heart of what I will move as an amendment, which I have had discussions with the government about.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I might just respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I do understand the point that the opposition is making. I guess, in considering the bill, we formed the view in the Greens that the election day itself is kind of the main attraction and it made sense to have more material there on election day. Particularly given the fact that some polling booths have multiple entrance points, you do not want to have a situation where people are not able to have a significant presence on the election day itself.

I do understand the point that the honourable member has made but on balance we thought it was better to have a bigger presence on the election day, recognising, of course, that we are reducing all of that other waste and domination of the public space during the election period on Stobie polls and the like.

To address the point of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Greens are not supportive of her amendment. I did give this a little bit of consideration. I do understand the point the honourable member is trying to make, but at the same time while she has indicated that there is a potential issue that arises where a political party that is running a candidate in the lower house and a series of candidates in the upper house could have up to 24 corflutes, conversely I think the Greens could see it as being quite unfair if one single candidate is getting the same number of corflutes individually as a political party outfit. Indeed, that does seem to offend the principle that was in the original Vickie Chapman bill and also in the David Speirs bill. On that basis, we are not supportive of the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think it is a bit of a stretch to say it offends the principle, because if you are one of these parties you could be running those corflutes at multiple booths across the state. You could have one of the parties with 24 corflutes at every booth where they choose to run a candidate, as opposed to the Independent or minor party that is just promoting their own party. I do not think it offends any principle, with respect.

However, I want to clarify that it is the member's understanding that in doing so there is no requirement in there that if it was me and I put 'SA-Best' on a corflute, then I would not necessarily have to distinguish between SA-Best lower house candidate and SA-Best upper house candidate. I could just write 'Vote 1 SA-Best', put it in a booth and put it on display on election day in the requisite spaces.

So there is nothing limiting the 12 to the lower house candidate who is actually running. That is the point I am making. You are getting 24 in total but they could be 24 'Vote Labor', they could be 24 'Vote Liberal', they could be 24 'Vote Greens', they could be 24 'Vote SA-Best'. There is nothing in there that actually requires you—you make your own judgement call about what you put on that corflute. But, in total, the suggestion is that you can have 24 in every other instance except for those individuals who are running for one chamber only. That is the point I am making.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I accept the honourable member's point and, yes, her interpretation is the same as mine. I guess, though, conversely, I would argue that were the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment to succeed, you could have a situation where one candidate has 24 corflutes stating 'Vote 1 X Independent member', versus another candidate who is running who only has 12. That does not seem to be a fair proposition.

The Greens are not supportive of the amendment but if there are issues that come up and we notice them, were these changes to be put in place, say, in time for the by-election, there is an opportunity to review how things work and certainly down the track we are happy to tweak it and reconsider it if a compelling case can be made. But at the moment I am not persuaded by that argument.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the member for his response. I have not moved my amendment yet, so I will speak to that when I get there, but as long as it is crystal clear: when it is left to the discretion of the party to determine who or what they will put on their corflute, it is exactly that. If they want 24 corflutes with Jane Smith's name on there, saying, 'Vote 1 Jane Smith for the [I do not know what] party', then that is entirely at their discretion. There is no inequity there. It is based purely on the discretion of the political party to choose what it is that they will put on those 24 corflutes.

The point is that you have 24 of them, you choose what goes on them, and the same should apply to everybody who is running for re-election at the same time. That is the underlying principle and the equity issue that this amendment seeks to address. I will speak to it further when we get to the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 16 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'on behalf' and substitute:

with the consent

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, lines 21 to 23 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(i)]—Delete inserted subparagraph (i) and substitute:

(i) it is exhibited—

(A) in the case of a group of candidates—by a member of the group or with the consent of the member of the group whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group; or

(B) in the case of any other candidate—by or with the consent of the candidate; and

I note that these are really consequential amendments. They do relate to the issues around consent of candidates that I have already ventilated. I guess just to highlight for members, in relation to amendment No. 8, this would ensure that permission is required from the lead candidate in relation to a group of Legislative Council candidates, to avoid a situation where you could have conflicting sets of permission that are given by multiple candidates who share the same total cap of posters.

For instance, you could have a ticket where you have four members running for the Legislative Council. We want to avoid the situation where there is confusion if the No. 2 on the ticket says, 'Yes, it's fine to distribute these corflutes' but the No. 1 has not actually signed off on that and provided permission. We are just trying to clarify those arrangements. Again, it goes to that point that I talked about earlier in terms of making it crystal clear whether or not the candidate has consented to the distribution of material.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 3, lines 24 to 34 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute:

(ii) —

(A) in the case of a group of candidates—

if the group is endorsed by a registered political party and a candidate endorsed by the party is standing for election in the House of Assembly district in which the poster is being exhibited—no more than 12 electoral advertising posters are exhibited by a member of the group or with the consent of the member of the group whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group within 50 metres of an entrance to the polling booth; or

in any other case—no more than 24 electoral advertising posters are exhibited by a member of the group or with the consent of the member of the group whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group within 50 metres of an entrance to the polling booth; and

(B) in the case of any other candidate—

if the candidate is endorsed by a registered political party and a candidate endorsed by the party is standing for election in the House of Assembly district in which the poster is being exhibited—no more than 12 electoral advertising posters are exhibited by or with the consent of the candidate within 50 metres of an entrance to the polling booth; or

in any other case—no more than 24 electoral advertising posters are exhibited by or with the consent of the candidate within 50 metres of an entrance to the polling booth.

I have spoken to this amendment, obviously, throughout the course of this debate. It goes to the issue that I have just asked my colleagues questions on and also the undertaking provided by the Attorney, which I am hoping he will confirm in speaking to this amendment. Effectively, and for the purposes of the public record, we have had a change in numbers from six to 12 and so a total number of corflutes that are allowed increasing effectively under the new amendments to 12 for a candidate standing in their own right or 24 where there are multiple candidates running for election in both the upper and lower house.

This amendment, as I have said, seeks to address that inequity that I have spoken of. With respect to my colleague the Hon. Robert Simms, I do not agree with his summation and I accept that he does not agree with mine, but I hope that he will be open to further consideration as we explore these issues going forward in other pieces of legislation that are subject to more timely debates than this one is going to be.

What we do know—and for the reasons that the Hon. Robert Simms sought to increase that number from six to 12, with a total being potentially 24 at a booth—is that corflutes on election day do play a critical role. As much as we hate them, materials on election day do play a critical role. I would like to address a point, I think made by the Hon. Dennis Hood, that you do not vote for someone based on the face on a corflute. Nobody is suggesting that; that would be a ridiculous suggestion. The idea is on election day when you go to a booth we know, through history, that having a corflute there is a prompt reminder for voters of who is standing for election in that seat.

You do not need a face on a poster but they do work wonders in terms of reminding voters of what the options are and that is a tool that minor parties and Independents have been served best by more than anything else. That is what 20 years in this place has taught me in terms of all the elections that I have worked on.

The most critical thing is feet on the ground and corflutes on election day. They are important. It is not a face on a picture that makes people vote. It is underestimating and is in fact quite insulting to voters, I think, to suggest that they would vote for you because they see your face on a glossy picture on election day, but it is a very useful tool to remind voters what those options are. It has played a critical role in terms of the election of the crossbench in this chamber and we know that to be the case.

It has done so for a very long time, so whilst we accept that we hate these things leading into election day, they do have a very valuable purpose on election day and my position firmly is that no person—whether they are standing for a party or by themselves—should be disadvantaged by having less of a presence on election day. This amendment would effectively allow that party to have the same number, or that individual to have the same number, and it is completely at the discretion then of the political party to nominate what it is that they put on there.

If they want to put 24 posters saying 'Vote 1 for SA-Best' or 'Vote 1 for Labor' or 'Vote 1 for Greens' then so be it. That is their call and they will exercise their own judgement in doing that, but an Independent or minor party who chooses not to run candidates in both seats should be afforded that same entitlement.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to reiterate, the Greens do not support the amendment for the reasons that I outlined earlier. I want to make the point that it is certainly not the intention of the Greens to disadvantage any small players or Independent candidates. Indeed, under the original bill, a sole candidate—that is, one who is standing just for one house—would only have been able to have six corflutes at the polling booth. Under this Greens amendment, they would be able to have 12. I do think, as a general principle, the number of corflutes should be proportionate to the candidate and should follow with the candidate's standing, so if each candidate gets 12 it seems pretty fair to me.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will reiterate that we are happy to explore the issues that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has raised.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In line with both the Greens and Labor, we are not supportive of the amendments but, as the Attorney indicated, if there is further exploration in this area then we will look at it in due course.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, we are going to get you to move your amendment No. 9 [Simms-1] because there is apparently a crossover so we need you to move your amendment before I put the Hon. Ms Bonaros's amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 26 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(ii)(A)]—Delete '6' and substitute '12'

The CHAIR: The question I am going to put is that all words down to and including '6' in line 26 on page 3 stand as printed. If you are supporting the Hon. Mr Simms you are going to vote yes. If you are supporting the Hon. Ms Bonaros you are going to vote no.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: Now the question we are going to put is on amendment No. 9 [Simms-1].

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 27 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(ii)(A)]—Delete 'by or on behalf of the group' and substitute:

by a member of the group or with the consent of the member of the group whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group

This one is pretty clear.

The CHAIR: It is basically consequential, the Hon. Mr Simms, so well moved. I am going to put the question.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 11 [Simms-1], which is also consequential.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 31 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(ii)(B)]—Delete '6' and substitute '12'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 32 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)(ii)(B)]—Delete 'on behalf' and substitute 'with the consent'

Amendment No 13 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, lines 37 and 38 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1c)]—Delete 'is exhibited by or on behalf of a candidate in contravention of' and substitute:

exhibited by or with the consent of a candidate contravenes

Amendment No 14 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, lines 1 and 2 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1d)]—Delete 'is exhibited by or on behalf of a group in contravention of subsection (1a) or (1b), the candidate' and substitute:

exhibited by a member of a group or with the consent of the member of the group whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group contravenes subsection (1a) or (1b), the member

Amendment No 15 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, lines 6 to 10 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1e)]—Delete inserted subsection (1e) and substitute:

(1e) If an electoral advertising poster is exhibited within 50 metres of an entrance to a polling booth open for polling without the consent of a candidate or group required under subsection (1a), the person who authorised the exhibition of the poster is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, after line 10 [clause 3(1), after inserted subsection (1e)]—Insert:

(1ea) Despite subsections (1c) to (1e), if the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that a person has contravened subsection (1c), (1d) or (1e), the Electoral Commissioner may give the person a written formal caution against further such contraventions.

(1eb) Subject to subsection (1ec), if the Electoral Commissioner gives a person a written formal caution under subsection (1ea), no further proceedings may be taken against the person for the contravention in relation to which the person was cautioned.

Note—

The presiding officer at a polling booth may (under subsection (1f)) direct or cause the removal of an electoral advertising poster exhibited in contravention of this section (whether a written formal caution is given in relation to the contravention or otherwise).

(1ec) If, in relation to an electoral advertising poster exhibited in contravention of subsection (1c), (1d) or (1e)—

(a) a person given a direction by a presiding officer under subsection (1f) to remove the poster fails to comply with a direction; and

(b) the person is also given a written formal caution under subsection (1ea) in respect of the contravention; and

(c) the failure to comply with the direction continues after the person is given the written formal caution,

nothing prevents criminal or civil proceedings from being taken against the person in relation to the contravention.

Just to refresh members' memories, I spoke about this issue in my second reading speech. This relates to the potential for the issuing of a warning before a fine. The amendment confers a discretion on the Electoral Commissioner to issue a formal written caution to a person who has committed an offence under the bill relating to having too many corflutes within 50 metres of the entrance to a polling place.

The intention behind this is to prevent a situation where an overzealous volunteer might place too many corflutes out there on election day or violate the rules. A candidate could be slapped with quite a significant fine and, indeed, the wording of the original bill goes straight to that. This would give the Electoral Commissioner the flexibility to issue a warning as well, noting that the existing provisions in clause 3 of the bill remain and that would allow the presiding officer at the polling booth to remove the material, so there is no potential for that to be staying there and impacting on the election.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, line 17 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1f)(b)]—Delete 'on behalf' and substitute 'with the consent'

Amendment No 18 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, line 22 [clause 3(1), inserted subsection (1f)(c)]—Delete 'on behalf' and substitute 'with the consent'

These are consequential, relating to the consent issue.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 19 [Simms–1]—

Page 5, line 11 [Schedule 1 clause 1(2), inserted paragraph (caa)]—After '(or is a poster' insert:

within the ambit of section 115(2b) of that Act or

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 5, after line 13 [Schedule 1 clause 1]—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) Section 226(5)—delete 'this section' and substitute 'subsection (2a)'

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (15:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.