HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 March 2009. Page 2045.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:03): I am pleased to make a contribution to this legislative matter before the house. I do not intend to go into any depth in relation to the bill, because I think the member for Heysen, the shadow attorney-general, has done an outstanding job of traversing all the issues—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: As always.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: As always. I am glad the Attorney-General acknowledges good parliamentary performers when they are evident. He is acknowledging the very good work the member for Heysen carries out in this house, as is his norm. We would be very pleased to distribute around the member for Heysen's electorate that the Attorney-General praises the member for Heysen.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You've got some bad obsessions, Mick, sometimes, I can tell you; but back to the matter of the bill before the house. There are two areas the bill looks at on which I would like to speak, that is, the issue of electoral advertising. Under the aspects of the bill, posters, corflutes, whatever you like to call them, will be banned from being placed on public property, which obviously entails Stobie poles and pieces of infrastructure such as that, and will be displayed only on private property. Also you will not be able to have a sign on your car.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, you will. Absolutely you will be able to have signs on your car.

Mr Bignell: And on private property?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And on private property.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Are you sure about that?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Absolutely; you have my commitment on that. It is on the Hansard.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: All right, fair enough. I take the—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Not at all. That is something the Attorney has announced since the introduction of the bill. So, you want to get your facts straight, member for Mawson. The original bill did say that displaying signage on vehicles was to be prohibited. Leon, you have got to follow what goes on in the parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kavel will not refer to members by other than their electorate, and he will address the bill that is in front of the house.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Mawson should follow the legislation through its course in the parliament. The Attorney-General made the commitment during the debate that signage will be allowed on motor vehicles. I was right and the member for Mawson was wrong, once again. However, back to the intent of the bill where we see—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What unusual people on the government side sometimes.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And there are so many of us.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: All very unusual, indeed, Mick. I am glad, again, that you agree with what some of the state Liberal members have to say. With respect to the banning of posters, one has to wonder why the government would take this stance. I think that the member for Unley yesterday in his contribution accurately portrayed the reason for that. Why did it not bring in this measure straight after the 2006 election? Why did it not bring it in when it first won government in 2002?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: In 2002 we got elected.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am fully aware of that. Why were these measures not brought to the parliament just after the 2006 election or the 2002 election? Really, it did not win the election. It assumed government through a deal with—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not fair, is it?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am not whinging about it. I am just communicating the facts of the matter. I am communicating what the reality of the matter is, that you assumed government by a deal that you did with a member of parliament. That is history, and we know all about that. Why is the government bringing in this measure 12 months out from an election? One has to view this with a degree of cynicism.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Really?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed, Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You're a man of the world.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Gee whiz; just give up, Mick, will you?

Mrs Redmond: 'Idiosyncratic' is the kindest word.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, that is too kind. The cynic in me thinks that this is purely politically motivated. It does not provide a decent chance for candidates of any party to run against sitting members. I heard the Attorney-General speak on radio about this issue; about how he drives down Port Road and he cannot stand—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No; in his government driven car—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I'm probably on my bicycle.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, rides down Port Road. He travels down Port Road and he cannot stand to see it festooned (that was the word) with election posters. In the 2006 election, the election posters that were festooned in the north-eastern suburbs were those of either Labor members or Labor candidates. I remember driving down Grand Junction Road, and every light pole had the Labor candidate for Newland festooned on it. It is, I think, a coincidence (if I can use that word) that this matter has been brought to the house now, 12 months out from the election. As I said, I think it is a conscious move to disadvantage those candidates who do not have incumbency.

I have seen the lack of effort that the Labor Party has put into campaigns when it has run candidates in the seat of Kavel. They run dead, because they get up to as much mischief as they possibly can—and we are fully aware of what they try to do. They look to support any candidate who they think has the best chance of knocking out the Liberal. They did that against me twice and failed twice. I do not think—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, they did support the Independent candidate and then the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It did not go backwards, though. I held my vote.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You held onto Kavel. You would have been retired to stud!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We are trying to have a sensible debate here in the house, and the Attorney-General is just making a complete farce of it. The Labor Party ran completely dead in the last election. I do not think it put up one poster for its beleaguered candidate in the Kavel electorate at the last election. I know it upset and hurt the Labor candidate that he did not really have the full support of the party, but that is the way they look to operate in election campaign matters. This is a move to disadvantage those candidates running against sitting Labor members.

The other issue I want to talk about is that of the registration of political parties. We know that, under the current act, either you must have 150 members or an elected member of an Australian parliament to be a registered political party. Again, I have a slight suspicion that one of the reasons the Attorney-General wants to amend this—and I think he is talking about a figure of 500, if that is correct—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's correct.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: He is on a jihad. It appears that the Attorney-General is on a jihad against the Democrats. He just cannot come to terms with the fact that they will not respond to his correspondence in relation to telling him how many members they have registered in their party. We saw the vitriol pour out from every pore of his body against the retired Democrat upper house member, Sandra Kanck. We all sat here asking where this was coming from. It goes to the nature of the Attorney-General that he embarks on these jihads against people—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that I am not the subject of the bill: the electoral law of the state is. Could the member for Kavel direct himself to the bill?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has mentioned several times that he would return to the substance of the bill. I wish he would not digress there from.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that I am talking about the bill, because I am making some statements about why I believe the Attorney-General is proposing that a registered party has to have 500 members in it to form such an organisation.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is against standing orders to impugn an improper motive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kavel, the subject under discussion is the bill, and the debate should focus on the issues surrounding the bill.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I actually thought I was traversing the issues within the bill.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's right, member for Heysen: it concerns the registration of political parties. The Attorney-General is the minister responsible for the carriage of this legislation through the parliament and I have no doubt is the person who would have taken the matter to cabinet for approval and to his caucus to consider and make a decision that, in their opinion, it was a worthy matter to bring before the parliament. I think that is how the Attorney-General is relevant to the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do understand the direction you have given me on the matter.

It also goes to the issue of the registration of political parties. Other members have spoken about the Country Labor Party and the very reason why the Australian Labor Party chose to run their candidate under that banner at the recent by-election of Frome. Why would they do that? They would do it because they have no faith and no confidence in their proper brand, the Australian Labor Party.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We're sorry that you lost Frome. We feel sorry about that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You can apologise as much as you like, Attorney-General but—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You're sooky-sooky la-la about Frome.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, we're not sooky la-la at all. It just highlights the lack of confidence you have in your brand that you have to change your name when you run in different electorates. At least you have an understanding of how unpopular you are in the country regions. So, I want to make the point that they do not have the faith or the confidence in their brand to be able to run state-wide The member for Heysen in her contribution spoke about the Electoral Commissioner being regarded as an affiliate, or something, of the ALP.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's right, something that you can't understand.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We can understand what she says, but we do not know how it refers to the act as such. It is an interpretation. It is an interesting issue, that the Labor Party does not have confidence in its brand to run at an election, and it will be interesting to see what it does at the general election in March next year, 12 months from now, and whether it does have the confidence to run under the Australian Labor Party banner or whether it will try to hide behind its Country Labor Party brand.

They are the two issues I want to highlight in relation to the bill. Because we have quite a number of concerns with many of the aspects of the legislation, as identified by the shadow attorney-general, the member for Heysen, we oppose the legislation, and I am pleased to have made this contribution to the house this afternoon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:21): I thank all members for their contribution and look forward to a detailed consideration of the clauses in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to ask about the commencement date. Usually, of course, we simply have a provision that states that the bill will come into operation as an act on a date to be fixed by proclamation. I am curious about why there is a second subclause that provides that clauses 9 to 14 inclusive must be brought into operation on the same day. I would like to know from the Attorney the intended commencement date of the act, the intended commencement date of clauses 9 to 14, and what is the rationale behind separating those sections from the commencement of the rest of the act and the purpose of their being brought in on some other date.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Which clauses?

Mrs REDMOND: Clause 2, the commencement clause, is divided into two parts. I am curious as to the intended commencement date, assuming that the bill has reasonably rapid progress. Why are clauses 9 to 14 treated separately, and when is it intended that they will commence? Why are they different from the rest of the legislation?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I expect the committee stage to go beyond today's sitting and so I will take those questions on notice. However, I can tell the member for Heysen that clauses 9 to 14 are to do with registration of political parties; therefore, it may be best to detach those provisions and proclaim them at a later date, giving all political parties and intended political parties due notice of what the bill is intended to do so that they can order their affairs accordingly.

For instance, the FREE Party, which is essentially a Gypsy Jokers party campaigning against the serious and organised crime act, has complained that somehow this bill was introduced in an attempt to deny it registration. Of course, the truth of the matter is that the bill was more than seven years in the making and that something like half the bill was introduced to parliament in 2001 by the former government and the former Liberal attorney-general, Hon. K.T. Griffin. I should add, parenthetically, that it is a paradox that the party that introduced the substance of this bill is now voting against it, but that is another story.

The FREE Party will have due notice of these provisions, clauses 9 to 14, if they are carried, and it will have months before they are proclaimed to order its affairs accordingly. In fact, the provision to increase the minimum number of members for the purpose of registration of a party was intended to be introduced in this bill for years before the FREE Party was even a gleam in the eye of a Gypsy Joker bikie. They are a very recent creation that comes long after the drafting of these provisions.

As it turns out, it has become plain that their prediction that these provisions would prevent their being registered is not true because they have now lodged an application for registration and taken advantage of the current provisions. So, they will not be affected by these changes; still less if the proclamation of clauses 9 to 14 is delayed and detached from the remainder of the bill.

Mrs REDMOND: In response to the Attorney's partial answer, given that he had to take my first question on notice, my understanding from his comment during the briefing was that this bill was not indeed designed to prevent the registration of the FREE Party. I took that at face value at the time, but given his comments a few moments ago my question is: is it not the case that the FREE Party can register now under the existing provisions if it has 150 members? For all I know they are registered now.

Is the intention of the commencement of clauses 9 to 14—sections 9 to 14, as they will become—to operate retrospectively so that, even if the FREE Party has been registered before the commencement of this legislation, they will then be forced into a situation where they have to increase their membership from 150 to 500 in order to satisfy the new provisions?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My intention is that they would have the benefit of the current law leading up to, and including, the next general election.

Mrs REDMOND: In that case, why did the Attorney indicate in the first part of his answer that they would have to come up with 500 people to be registered? Is the Attorney actually saying that, if they do not register before the commencement of sections 9 to 14, they will then have to come up with 500 members, but, provided they have registered before then, they will be able to exist and be recognised as a party with 150 members going into the 2010 election?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is plain that the answer is the latter.

Mr HANNA: I want to first make the point that I was temporarily out of the chamber, and that was after consulting with the Government Whip, who assured me that we would not be going into the detailed consideration of the clauses of this bill this afternoon. It is always disappointing to have a broken promise when it comes to transacting the business of the house. I do not know how it happened. I can only make that observation. However, I have amendments ready and they are—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr HANNA: Well, I do not know who was responsible. All I know is that they are the facts. The amendments that I have prepared are being distributed as we speak. I note that I was able to email a plain English version of these to the Attorney and to the shadow attorney on Monday, so at least there has been some forewarning. Those amendments do not start until clause 9.

In relation to clause 2 of the bill, I think that the issue of retrospectivity has been canvassed by the shadow attorney. I simply ask the Attorney what he expects the time frame for the passage of this bill will be, bearing in mind it is yet to go through the upper house. If it passes through both houses, when does the Attorney think that this would come into effect?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is not my intention to prejudice the rights and duties of parties, or potential parties, leading up to the general election due on 20 March 2010. It is fair to say that, when an electoral bill comes before the parliament, one expects nearly every member to speak because, for politicians, the electoral bill is their bread and butter.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; in fact, the member for Heysen misleads the house. We had the members for Enfield and West Torrens. Every other time I have seen an electoral bill debated in parliament in my 19 years in parliament, nearly every member wants to speak on the bill, because every member regards himself or herself as an expert on the electoral law.

Today, the electoral bill was scheduled for the second day of debate, and it was expected that a minimum of five members of the opposition were to speak on the bill. In fact, after one further speaker, the opposition folded. It did not have sufficient members willing to make a contribution on the electoral bill to keep the debate going.

Mrs REDMOND: A point of order, Madam Chair: I accept that during the committee stage debate is somewhat more flexible, but it seems to me that the Attorney-General's comments go nowhere near the matter raised by the member for Mitchell about the commencement of the legislation.

The CHAIR: I did understand that the Attorney was leading to issues relating to the question about the expected time of passage in the parliament, but perhaps, Attorney, you could be more transparent in your answer.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Chair, the member for Mitchell asked me squarely why the committee stage of this bill is now being debated in this chamber, and I am answering his question. The answer is that the Liberal Party speakers did not materialise. They did not turn up and they were unable to keep—

Mrs Redmond: What about the Labor Party speakers?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The government has no obligation to keep debate on a bill going. We are not here just to fill up time or to filibuster against our own legislation. The opposition has had notice of this bill for the required length of time; it has had a three hour briefing on it from the Electoral Commissioner, my staff and me; it should be ready to go. That is what oppositions do.

Mr Hanna: You've put your whip in a very difficult position.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Mitchell tries to make the Government Whip the lightning rod for the inadequacies of the opposition, and I will not have that. When we come into this place we promise to cooperate with the prompt dispatch of business.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We did not breach the undertaking: the opposition did.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Here are a group of people, the opposition and the member for Mitchell—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Everybody sit down and keep quiet. The Attorney—on a calm note, please.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I promised when I entered this place in 1989 to cooperate in the prompt dispatch of business, and that is what I am doing. I do not know where the Liberal Party speakers were. Perhaps they were doing something else; they found something else more compelling. Generally—

Mr PISONI: A point of order, Madam Chair: I ask that the Attorney-General withdraw that remark. I can find the standing order that it relates to—127: reflections on members—and I ask that he withdraw the suggestion that opposition members were doing something other than being attentive to parliamentary duties.

The CHAIR: There is no point of order. Attorney, perhaps you could proceed in a calmer manner.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Nothing in the electoral bill is designed to prejudice, before the general election of March 2010, the rights and duties of existing or prospective parties.

Mr PISONI: Referring to that commencement and the timing, Attorney-General, why is it that this bill does not appear on today's Notice Paper?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The green paper is merely a guide. The Notice Paper is what guides the house. It is in front of the member for Unley, and I advise him to read it and understand it.

Mr PISONI: The Attorney did not answer the question. I will ask it again. Why was it not on the Notice Paper, Attorney-General? Is it because you are not organised? Is that what it is?

The CHAIR: Order! That is not a question relating to the clause of the bill. The member for Stuart.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I was ready, willing and able to speak on this bill. I study this green every day. I examined it, and it says here, 'Orders of the Day: Government Business No. 68 Architectural Practices Bill—Completion of debate.' I had my speaker on in my office; I was doing other things. By the time I got down here, it was completed. That is well and good, but remember that it is very easy for us to keep this debate going.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To filibuster!

The CHAIR: Order! Attorney, please be helpful.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: There are many issues in relation to clauses in this bill to which I want to refer. I have been the victim of some of the unscrupulous escapades, and I want this committee to be fully aware of them. I will add chapter and verse. If the Attorney wants us to debate it at length, I am willing to do so because there is nothing more fundamental in a democracy—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Get on with it!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: There is no need to have a short fuse, Attorney-General. The Attorney-General wanted to hand it out and, when a bit comes back, he gets a bit testy. Let me say to the Attorney that some of us have been the victims of it, and I do not want it to happen again because I believe that in a democracy this legislation is fundamental. It is absolutely important to making sure that the average citizen's rights are protected, as is the Constitution Act. If the Attorney wants for some reason to change the arrangement, it is news to me because we get the weekly arrangement.

We discuss in our party room what is going to take place, and we are ready, willing and able. Pull it on, okay? I really think that if it is fair and wants to correct the situation, the government should report progress and we will come back on the next day of sitting. I have never had a problem dealing with the whip in the past. I have never personally had a problem, but someone has been a bit like Fred Astaire—pretty quick on their feet! Normally when that happens you buy into it and you will get a fight. Governments never win by doing this, because you will not get anything through today, I can tell you.

We can pull every trick in the trade, and if you want the bells to start ringing that is what is going to happen. We can call the ministers out of their office every few minutes. I would suggest that you all have a drink of water and just understand clearly that, if you want, the standing orders will be applied. I would sooner not do it, but we can bring them out of the building, there can be quorums and all sorts of things. You would be wise just to have a bit of common sense. This is not how the real world operates.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Given that the Liberal opposition has signalled that it is going to refuse to cooperate in the dispatch of parliamentary business, accordingly, I move that we report progress.

Mrs REDMOND: I rise on a point of order.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move that we report progress. Is that not what you want?

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Heysen has raised a point of order.

Mrs REDMOND: The point of order is that the Attorney is again being gratuitously offensive and imputing motive to the opposition when it is clearly the Attorney and the whip on the government side who have been at fault in this matter in having the bill brought on in the way it was without it being on the Notice Paper, and I am not going to sit here and allow that.

The CHAIR: Order! That is sufficient, member for Heysen, I allowed you to make your point generously.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I am offended by the member for Heysen's comments.

Mr Pisoni: This is not a point of order; this is a personal explanation.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: The opposition advised—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mrs GERAGHTY: Sit down, you silly man.

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Unley, take your seat.

Mrs GERAGHTY: The opposition was advised earlier today that if there was time this bill would be coming back on—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Torrens, that is not a point of order. You are entitled to make a personal explanation, however. Attorney, did I hear you move that progress be reported?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT