Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 12 November 2024.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As we resume this bill I want to thank everyone for their contributions to date in the committee stage, but I also want to thank everyone for their contributions particularly around a couple of issues that were raised last night. I think the way that we were able to have discussions about how elements of the bill work, continue those discussions after we adjourned at about 9.30 last night, and continue those among quite a range of parties in the chamber this morning and to come up with what I believe is a pretty reasonable solution to some of the concerns that were raised, shows exactly the value of the Legislative Council by interrogating legislation thoroughly, line by line.

There were legitimate concerns raised last night about the implementation of I think recommendation 12 of the expert panel report and the repayment of funds that are paid based on the last electoral result. I think, quite rightly, there were issues raised by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Frank Pangallo about payments that were based on the last election—80 per cent of the result for the last time—for contesting the next election.

Of course, in the situation of SA-Best, which received—I cannot remember the exact amount—just under 20 per cent of the vote when the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Frank Pangallo were elected, that is a considerable vote that was achieved at that time. As the issues were agitated last night, under the bill as it was drafted, and giving effect to those recommendations of the expert panel, it would have meant that the amount of money that would have been paid in recognition of the last election result is somewhere in the order of $500,000 for SA-Best and somewhere in the order of $100,000 to $120,00 for the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

Under the way the expert panel's recommendations were drafted, it would have meant if neither SA-Best nor the Hon. Frank Pangallo achieved that threshold of 2 per cent then those funds may have been repayable. I think concern was raised that it does not give a lot of security or a lot of ability to actually campaign with confidence using those funds with it hanging over you that they may have to be repaid if you do not meet a 2 per cent threshold which, in the case of the Legislative Council is a substantial number of votes—tens of thousands of votes that are required.

After quite a lot of discussion between I think nearly every party represented in the Legislative Council chamber, I will be moving amendments at clause 20 on page 35—when we get to clause 20—to amend the scheme so that if you receive that funding based on your last election result, and you do not achieve, in the case of the Legislative Council, 2 per cent, or in the case of the House of Assembly, a 4 per cent vote, there is not the requirement for that to be repaid. The requirement still remains if you have signed that declaration that it will be spent for electoral campaigning purposes. It still needs to be spent for that purpose, but merely failing to achieve those thresholds will not force a situation where you are asked to repay that.

On top of that, we are making it clear that that requirement to repay any amount is a discretion, it is not mandatory for the Electoral Commissioner, and we are making it clear that there are circumstances where that discretion is not used. When we get to the amendment at clause 20 that I think is sitting on everyone's tables it will talk about the fact if the candidate or the group has a good reason for not contesting the election.

For example, in the case of an Independent or for a party, if someone runs in the campaign, incurs that expenditure from the amount of money they have been paid based on their last election result and becomes very seriously ill a couple of months before an election and cannot contest that election, then they are not asked to repay it because they had a good reason for not contesting that election. That is another sensible reform that is being made to this bill as a result of discussions from the committee stage last night and those that have occurred since.

I also want to make it clear that the amendment that we will be proposing at clause 20 in relation to that advance funding of up to two lots of $2,500, thresholds will apply to that, as they have for the last 10 years, to get public funding. If you do receive those two lots of $2,500, up to $5,000, and you do not meet the 2 per cent threshold in the upper house and the 4 per cent threshold in the lower house, that up to $5,000 can become repayable because they are the thresholds to receive public funding that have existed in our system for the last decade.

Again, I want to thank members. As has been noted during second reading contributions, we are not just leading the nation but we are leading the world in a lot of respects in this legislation and I think the Legislative Council has done its job exceptionally well. Again, I want to place on record my gratitude to those who have contributed to discussions not just in this chamber last night but, since we finished at 9.30 last night, during the course of yesterday evening and this morning, to arrive at what I think is a sensible resolution to concerns that were raised, which is exactly what we ought to be doing in this chamber.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the Attorney for his explanation. That does clarify matters for me somewhat but I do want to pin down a few more of those details and obviously we will deal with this a little bit more thoroughly at clause 20 but the Attorney mentioned the amendment, which is really the key here.

If I am correct, Attorney, I think we all understand that the current sitting members will not be subject to repayment provisions in simple terms, but those who are not sitting members may well be; that is, they will be subject to 2 per cent and 4 per cent potentially: 2 per cent Legislative Council and 4 per cent House of Assembly, at the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner. That is where I want to hone in, if I can.

You gave an example of someone who might be unwell. I think that is reasonable. We would all accept that. Under what other circumstances is it envisaged that somebody may not have to repay that amount, either the 4 per cent or 2 per cent, if they are not a sitting member in this place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the question and I thank the honourable member for the question. I do not think I am going to be able to provide an exhaustive list of other reasons that may come into fruition. The example is if you become unwell and cannot contest the election. There may be other personal circumstances—not just your own infirmity, it might be a very close family member's infirmity—or it might be you commit a criminal offence and go to jail and you cannot contest the election. There may be a whole range of reasons why the Electoral Commissioner may not exercise that discretion to recover. There would be quite a number of reasons. I will not be able to provide an exhaustive list of reasons, but it does provide that discretion. It is a 'may recover'.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have just a few questions on this topic and then I will let others have a go. Thank you, Attorney, I think that is clear enough. I am imagining a circumstance where a minor party, for example, does not have representation currently in either chamber of this place. They contest the election in both houses, and they have multiple candidates in the House of Assembly and a few candidates, let us say, in the Legislative Council. They are still subject to the 2 per cent and 4 per cent provisions, as I understand it. If that is the case, can I understand the government's thinking on that—what is the reason for that provision in those circumstances?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will be corrected if I get this wrong as I am explaining it, but as I am advised, in 2014 Attorney-General Rau brought in the public funding regime that we have now, and that provides for public funding based on the vote you get at the election you are contesting. That is then paid to you should you reach a threshold that shows that, essentially, you had a level of support and a serious candidate contending in the political system. Since 2014, that has been fixed at 2 per cent for the Legislative Council and 4 per cent for the lower house, so that people, if they opt for public funding, as has been the case for the last decade, are entitled to it but only once they hit those thresholds of 2 per cent in the upper house and 4 per cent in the lower house.

The honourable member's example was if you are a new political party and you had three candidates in the lower house and a couple in the upper house. As I am advised, each of those five candidates could apply for those two lots of $2,500—so $5,000 for each candidate—but in addition to that, after the election has been run, as has been the case in the last few electoral cycles since the 2014 amendments were brought in, if you meet that threshold of 4 per cent in the lower house or 2 per cent in the upper house you are entitled to public funding for that election that is being held. That remains in there with those thresholds, so that is why we thought it was reasonable that those thresholds also apply, in the same circumstances as the new entrants, for that money that you can get in advance.

So it is applying a system that is, in that respect, known and has been in place for a number of electoral cycles. I think where we ran into it, with questions raised last night, is regarding retrofitting what has happened to people who have already been elected and who have obviously shown that level of support to get elected in the first place—I think the unfairness arose at their next election if they had to repay funding based on already demonstrating that they had that level of support.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is the last question on this, and then I think I will be satisfied. I think I am satisfied, actually, but I just want to be absolutely clear. So in my example, Attorney, party X, which has a few members contesting the lower house and let's say a couple of members contesting the Legislative Council, if they achieved—and this is where it gets a little complicated, I think.

By seat, let's say they had four members contesting the lower house seats and two of them got over 4 per cent and two of them got less than 4 per cent, and within the Legislative Council they achieved a vote of let's say just over 2 per cent: am I correct in assuming that they would then be entitled to funding for the two members of the lower house who got over 4 per cent and the two Legislative Councillors but not the two members of the lower house who did not get over 4 per cent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In effect, yes. Of course, if it is the one party X that is running all of these candidates, it would not be that one member of that party got over 2 per cent of the upper house and the other one did not. If it is the one party, either they both did or they both did not. But in the example that is given, my advice is, yes, for that party, if in one lower house seat one person achieved 7 per cent or 8 per cent, they would be entitled to the funding based on the dollars per vote for that 7 per cent or 8 per cent for that seat, as well as not being liable for repayment of the up to $5,000 of advance funding.

If that same party had someone running for another seat who got 1 per cent, they do not meet that 4 per cent threshold in the lower house so they are not entitled to any dollars per vote public funding after the election and they are liable for repayment of that advance funding. In the case of the upper house, it is that party—as a party, both candidates either get over the group ticket 2 per cent or they do not.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On this question of new entrants, just so I am clear in my understanding: if someone is standing for parliament for the first time, under what the government is proposing they have two options available to them. The first option is to get the $5,000, in effect, up-front, or they can elect to still take donations, individual donations, of $5,000 each; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You are able to do a combination of those things. As a new entrant, if you are contesting a lower house seat, for example, my advice is you could apply for your advance funding of the two lots of $2,500, so up to $5,000, as well as being able to raise funds but with the conditions on a $5,000 maximum only up to the cap that is applicable for that particular seat.

If you were running for the second time—you have run a first time, you have got your $5,000, you got 10 per cent and had public funding for having run that first time—the second time you run as a non-incumbent, you would then be able to take the choice of using the vote you got last time of 10 per cent to receive that advance funding based on your vote at the last election and then you cannot receive donations, or for that second time you can do what you did last time and have that advance funding as well as a possible combination of donations. I hope that is clear.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to make it crystal clear, I am with the 'Public transport for the regions' party—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It would do very well in some places, I suspect. I am standing for office for the first time. I get a choice around what I want to do. I could actually fundraise myself and I can also get public funding to give me the best possible chance of success in the election.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For example, if you were running for the 'Thanking Labor for public transport in the regions' party, although you could not use 'Labor'—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I doubt you could use 'Labor' in the name without the permission of the Labor Party.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The 'We love Rob Simms' party, for example—if you were running for the first time, my advice is you could receive that advance funding of two lots of $2,500 up to $5,000 and receive donations, with all the stipulations on what you receive as a new entrant. If you were running for the second time and you elected to receive advance funding based on your vote before, then you do not get that new entrant benefit, but if you decided not to receive funding on the vote you got before, my advice is you can do what you did at the last election.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: A final question: I have never heard of a scheme like that happening before. Is that something that is quite new in terms of places around the world actually offering that level of support to new entrants getting into the system?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised we do not know of another scheme with exactly those particulars, but as we have traversed and as I think many mentioned in their second reading contributions yesterday afternoon, this is, as is South Australian tradition, world-leading reform in terms of protecting and ensuring democracy. In that respect, we are not aware of very similar schemes.

An important aspect of this scheme is doing what we can to encourage new participants into the scheme. We have had a very healthy democracy and a very proud tradition of third parties in the process in South Australia, particularly in the chamber that we are in, over many decades. Certainly, there are those incentives in the scheme to make sure that we are doing what we can to not quell that strong interest we have had in a robust democracy in South Australia.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to the Attorney-General's amendment, specifically subsection (2)(a), in regard to that advance funding, if a candidate does not completely spend all of the funds throughout that campaign and then, by virtue of a good reason, the candidate does not contest the election, given there are funds that were not expended, will the candidate, the party or the group be required to pay back or give back those moneys not spent? It is the same as a question that was asked by the Hon. Frank Pangallo yesterday, essentially.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, when you sign up for the advance funding in the situation you have talked about, you need to sign a declaration that is a legal document that you will only use it for state electoral purposes. It would then be up to the Electoral Commissioner about how to enforce the declaration you have made. It is a point the shadow attorney-general, the member for Heysen in another place, has raised.

I understand the intention is for this bill not to be considered this week but in the final sitting week in the lower house. If wording needs to be changed, we are happy to look at it, but it is the case that a declaration is signed by the person who receives that money that it will only be used for state electoral purposes, so there is the potential ability for the Electoral Commissioner to hold someone to that declaration. Mr Josh Teague has raised these points, and we are happy to further consider it, bearing in mind that there already is that interaction between the declaration you have signed and any unspent moneys.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to ensuring that funding is spent on campaign purposes, who will be doing the auditing of that expenditure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the Electoral Commissioner, and that is who has done the auditing in relation to the public funding since the public funding disclosure regimes and caps were brought in in 2014.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will additional resources be required for the Electoral Commission to undertake that audit process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is not just that particular function but there are extra functions the Electoral Commissioner will need to have in relation to the scheme as a whole. Certainly, my advice is that it is something that is factored into account and will be provided to make sure it operates effectively and efficiently.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Has that been, for want of a better term, costed in your modelling?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, preliminary work has been undertaken in relation to the administrative costs and costs of enforcement of the scheme. I can inform the chamber that the preliminary costs, which of course will be subject to exactly how the bill looks once it has passed both chambers of parliament, will necessarily be greater in different years—the year an election is on, the cost for the Electoral Commission will be greater. From preliminary costs, it is somewhere in the order of just under $1 million a year for the Electoral Commissioner for all the extra costs to do with what is a world-leading new scheme.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will ask a question around associated entities in the bill: what precisely is that designed to protect, and what constitutes an associated entity?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that an associated entity, in the way it operates in this scheme, is an entity that is very closely related. I will get the exact definition in a moment. It is designed to stop the setting up of other entities that are in fact really the same entity as, for example, a registered political party and using that associated entity to try to get around the caps in terms of being able to spend money on election campaigns. That concept has been, again, for the last decade in our legislation for the purposes of spending caps and public funding. 'Associated entity' is defined in part 1(30)(a) of the current act interpretation section.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can a registered political party send money to a nominated associated entity?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This was the subject of some discussion and negotiation, I am advised, but the scheme that is before us allows a relationship between a political party and two associated entities. I am advised that is because political parties often have entities that hold funds or accounts for them. I think ALP Holdings holds funds or property for the Labor Party, and there is a similar holding fund or trust for the Liberal Party, as I think there are for many entities. It allows funds between those two nominated associated entities, but only those two nominated entities. Is that the question?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes, it is. I think the Attorney has already answered my question, when you say 'back and forth'. My next question is: can the associated entity provide additional funding to the political party they are associated with, and if so is there a cap to the amount that they can provide to that political party in any given year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that for those two nominated associated entities there is no prohibition on what essentially can go back and forth, but there is a prohibition on what the money can be used for, and my advice is that that is only for administrative purposes. My advice is that it cannot be used for campaigning purposes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I want to ask the Attorney some questions in relation to this amendment. In doing so—and I have listened to the discussions—I just want to be clear: the government is advancing this bill, not us, and there is no alternative under this bill, is there? There is a scheme that exists for sitting members and for new entrants into politics.

I am sure the Attorney will agree that, yes, that is the case, and as it turns out we have a very nuanced situation right now in politics because of that new scheme, but that is not to say that in the future there might not be another very nuanced scheme. I do not know whether that is very likely. I do not think it is, but it is not to say that it will not happen again. So this scheme, this amendment, would apply equally to anybody who finds themselves in this situation? That is my first question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. My advice is that is correct, as described, and the honourable member is right. There is a nuanced situation at the moment where there is a party represented in this chamber that achieved—and I am sure I will be corrected—18 or 19 per cent in the 2018 state election in the Legislative Council. It is a nuanced situation to have a third party that has had that sort of performance at an election, but might not at the members' next election in eight years' time. It might not achieve that sort of result, so it is a nuanced situation for where this parliament finds itself at the moment, but these provisions do not just apply to this particular situation that we discussed last night but any situations like that that occur in the future.

If there was another third party that achieved one-fifth of the vote in the Legislative Council at a future election, and then let's say in eight years' time two or three members of that party were up for election again, and that party only achieved 1 or 1½ per cent of the vote, the same provisions that we are talking about now applying would apply to them as well; that is, the failure to achieve the 2 per cent would not require a repayment of funds. It recognises that there has been legitimate support for that group the last time they contested an election.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, and I am glad you raised that, because that is what the scheme is based on. It is based on those results in acknowledgement of the result that was received at the time, regardless of what has happened since, and regardless of who is standing in here now. I will use me as the example, given there has been a lot of discussion about SA-Best. I have not spoken directly about me, but I will use me as the example.

I am not Nick Xenophon, clearly. He has a long history in this place of being able to achieve those results. I do not think anyone is going to achieve those results again, including me, but I might be minded to say at the next election, 'You know what, maybe I have enough support to get elected,' and so I choose to run. There is no other scheme that is proposed here for me, other than this one, to be able to do that.

In a very practical sense, the application of this, and the reason these issues have been raised, I guess, is that we do not know what the outcome is going to be at the next election. I am pretty sure everyone has bets on it, but we do not know what the election result is going to be. But a candidate who is here, notwithstanding how they got here, might want to give that a red-hot crack, and that is their entitlement; correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That being the case, I just want to go to the first clause in this amendment. If we think about this practically, when somebody signs up for this, whether it is an Independent or a minor party, and I guess this is what I was trying to get to last night, you do not come to February and do all your—there is a lead-in time where you are trying to do all these things that are going to get you elected, and under this scheme that lead-in time starts on 1 July; correct? Yes, I am getting a nod, so that is correct.

The scheme starts on 1 July. So between 1 July and 17 March I do everything in my power to try to get myself elected, and I use that cap. But in February I have a car accident, or I am diagnosed with cancer, or my husband dies, or I have a mental breakdown, or any manner of things could happen to me in the weeks preceding the election, or the months preceding the election, and I have already gone down the path of saying, 'I'm running,' and from the cap that I was entitled to I have already spent 20, 30, 40 per cent, or however you choose to do it.

As an extension of the point that was made last night, there may be very legitimate reasons. If I am in a car accident, and I cannot run, you would think then there would be a second person who would step into that position, but it might not be me; it might be an Independent. There has to be an ability to say that that person cannot be liable if they have made a genuine attempt at running, but something has happened that is a good reason, that means that they cannot run.

It could be something terrible. It could be—I do not know—a terminal cancer diagnosis, and the last thing that I would want to think about in the last weeks of that would be running an election campaign. So in those instances what I am getting to is that there would be grounds, then, to say, 'Okay, you haven't actually contested because of those good reasons, but you will not be liable if that was what you were intending to do up until that point, and you can establish that,' and obviously you are going to have to be able to establish that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, my advice is that is precisely the reason for that particular amendment—and a good reason. I think as we traversed a little bit earlier, it might have a broad application. It might be your own illness. It might be an illness of someone who you need to care for. There might be a whole range of reasons why you cannot contest. But you are right: I do not think it would be an outcome that anyone wants if you have in good faith contested a political contest and then have to withdraw at the end.

I think it would not be good public policy to force someone to continue to contest an election just so they had their name on a ballot paper so that they did not have to pay back money when there are very good reasons not to contest. It might be exceptionally detrimental to their health or, in the example the honourable member gave, a cancer diagnosis, the last few weeks of their life would be spent contesting an election that they are not fit to contest just so that they are not liable for potential repayment of money, and that is exactly why it is there.

It is not just a candidate, either. So it is not just an Independent who has received funding but a group as well, recognising that in some of the nuanced cases that we see groups can largely be an individual as well, but if that group itself does not contest and there is a good reason that is captured by the amendment as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: By the same token, in that scenario we could say there might be two people or three people or five people listed on your ticket and the first person pulls out: you either continue campaigning for Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 and I guess No. 2 steps into the spot of No. 1, depending on—there is a cut-off point, is there not, with the Electoral Commission, when the ballot gets printed? I guess the point I am making is there is also the ability to say, 'Well, okay, that money has been spent on SA-Best. Connie's pulling out, but Jo Smith, who was No. 2, is stepping up.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is correct. It might be the case, in the example given, that SA-Best received their funding from their 2018 result and they are contesting the election in December before the March election. The Hon. Connie Bonaros pulls out for very good reason and SA-Best make the decision that they do not wish to contest the election anymore without Connie Bonaros. So it makes it very clear that it is a candidate or a group that can pull out of the election. By the same token, if SA-Best decide they still wish to contest the election and have other members of that party contest under SA-Best they can continue to do so and can continue to spend the rest of the funds between December and March.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, we have had a situation in here recently where that has actually occurred, have we not, prior to the printing of the ballot papers, where the former member Kelly Vincent was elected? She found herself in that position as being the No. 2 who stepped up to No. 1 following—he died, did he not?

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Yes, he died.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, he died. So it is not that nuanced: it can happen, and it can happen to anyone.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: No, but it's been solved. That's what the amendment does.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes; and this amendment is addressing that issue.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This amendment is not designed to address any specific issue that has arisen now. As the honourable member points out, this addresses an issue that has happened a number of times, I am guessing, in all parliaments around Australia over a number of decades.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just a few questions around this issue. I am going to depersonalise it and depoliticise it because I do not think it is always helpful to talk about individuals and political parties. In terms of options that members of parliament might have, if you are a representative of party A and you contested the last election as party A but you decide you want to stand as an Independent at the next election, you can then choose to access a totally different scheme, can you not? You do not have to be bound by the party scheme for party A; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, the honourable member is correct and there is a huge range of scenarios that might happen. For example, if you represent party A in the lower house of parliament, and you have been elected during the course of a particular term of parliament, and you decide to leave that party and become an Independent—I think we talked about this yesterday—you as an Independent can have the benefit of the vote that you received as a candidate for that party, to contest it as an Independent, but the party also gets the benefit of the funding for the party as well. So my advice is you are not chained to the party—or there is no other option in that respect, I think, is maybe what the honourable member is asking.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, that is kind of what I am getting at. I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros made the point that there is no option for her in the scheme—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: No, not for me.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: —or for someone in your scenario, for instance. Just to clarify, members have a range of options in not being constrained by the funding model.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, sorry, but can I just clarify that?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is the point that the member is making that I can choose to leave SA-Best and stand as Independent Connie Bonaros and then be subject to a different scheme? Is that the option? When I said there are no alternatives I am saying: here we are, there are minor parties, Independents and politicians sitting, and the concept that has just been introduced is that I might wake up in July and say, 'You know what? Stuff SA-Best, I am going to run as an Independent, Connie Bonaros,' and, if I chose to do that, then I would be subject to a different scheme altogether?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the honourable member do any such thing. I was just trying to tease out that a member is not constrained by the banner under which they were elected during the previous election. That was the point that I was seeking to make.

It was my understanding of the legislation that actually, while someone might be elected under a particular party banner, if they choose not to run under that party's structure at the next election then they can access the other provisions that relate to being an Independent. That was the point I was trying to make. I was not meaning any disrespect to the honourable member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I did not take it that way. I am considering all my future options, Mr Simms. We are playing them out here for the entire chamber to see and for everyone watching. I would love to know how many people are watching. Going back to the amendment—and I think I have my head around what the member has said—in that scenario then the person would rely on, you are saying, being an Independent but on the vote that they got elected on, correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I can confirm that. What we confirmed last night, and what I confirm again, for example, is that if you are an Independent and you held a regional seat in the state parliament and then decided not to stay in that party during the course of that term, or if you were a Labor Party northern suburbs member and decided not to stay in that party, as has happened many decades ago, as an Independent you are not essentially handcuffed to that party. If you left and became an Independent you would be entitled to rely on that funding—80 per cent of your vote last time—that you got at the last election. Notwithstanding you were a member of the party at the last election, you would be entitled to that vote to contest the next election but your party would not lose the money.

The CHAIR: I am going to go to the Hon. Mrs Henderson who has jumped up about 10 times and I have not been able to give her a say.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I have a couple of questions, one stemming from the Hon. Connie Bonaros before, when talking about reasoning that would justify not needing to pay back funding should someone not ultimately contest that election. If someone was to, for example, run for the Legislative Council and subsequently either enter on a vacancy if they are a minor party, or, if they are an Independent, change their mind and run, instead of for the Legislative Council, in the lower house, would they be required to pay back funding that they had received for contesting what was initially going to be a different seat?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is in the example that the honourable member is asking about—that is, you ran for a certain seat and then decided to run for the Legislative Council or vice versa, from one chamber to another—that certificate that you sign with the Electoral Commissioner before you start running would need to be updated and, if there was a variation to what you might be entitled to in relation to those, that would be taken into account as part of that variation. That is my advice.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: If a non-incumbent party was to amalgamate with another non-incumbent party or change their name in between election cycles, would they still be recognised for per vote advance funding based on the prior election results of those former parties that had ultimately amalgamated or the prior party, prior to changing its name?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, when it comes to registered political parties, if it is a new registration—that is, a new political party, not just one not reregistering but merely changing their name, a mere change of name and it is a continuation of that registered party—it would not affect the scheme. It would follow one for the change of name for the same registered party.

But if the largely same people who were involved in one party register a brand new party, then my advice is that, no, it does not come over, because it is a new party and if there were two other parties that had the ability to attract funding previously, but a completely new party was born out of that, even if there were similar people involved in each, they would not get the benefit of those two other parties. That is my advice.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could you please advise how advance funding would apply to Legislative Council candidates who are elected on a group ticket who subsequently might become an Independent when contesting the next election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the benefit of the committee, I have an answer but there is maths involved. It is in a schedule, I think, to the act, so I am happy to canvass that, report progress and then answer that as soon as we come back to this after private members'. With that, I report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:17.