HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2045.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:23): Before the lunch break, I was discussing the issue of access to electoral rolls, and I think I got as far as noting the somewhat curious situation that we still have these days whereby those of us who are elected to this chamber can only obtain the electoral roll for our own electorates but those in the other place can obtain the electoral roll for the whole state, meaning that if we need access to those we have to do a two-step process to get hold of the electoral details for persons other than those in our own electorate. I am not suggesting we are going to move any amendment in that regard: I just note it as a curious anomaly.

Primarily, as I said before the break, the nature of this particular amendment is directed at the fact that electronic versions are now cheaper and easier than hard copy versions, and I noticed in the second reading explanation that the Attorney-General assured us, on behalf of the state Electoral Commissioner, that for the foreseeable future it was nevertheless intended that there would continue to be a hard copy of the roll available for purchase at the commission's office.

I expressed some concern about how long the foreseeable future might last, because it seems to me increasingly in our society that governments think it is sufficient when wanting to notify the public about anything to simply put it on a website, make a website address known, or do other communications by way of electronic means without recognising that there is still a significant portion of the population that does not access electronic means and, indeed, it is one of the indicators of social deprivation in some suburbs.

In areas where some of us live there may be a very high rate of ownership of computers, and so on, but there will be many areas where there is a much lower rate of ownership of computers, access to computers and the likelihood of the education for using computers. It is a social justice indicator, and I merely put on the record for the future the fact that I suspect we need to make sure that the foreseeable future extends considerably rather than simply being code for 'once we have got this through we will stop making a hard copy available'—and I am not suggesting that is the intention here. Primarily—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Primarily. The emphasis is on the first syllable. You sound American.

Mrs REDMOND: —the government is trying to change this on the basis of a recommendation that came from the former state electoral commissioner that the rolls not be so easily accessible as to be exploited for commercial purposes. I think in the second reading explanation there is a figure of something like 60 or 70 per cent of the population that is opposed to the access to the rolls being made available for commercial purposes to develop marketing rolls.

I assume what they do is access the roll, which they are able not only to look at but also to purchase a copy of. They can then set up a computer system that will draw out all the people in a certain age group, gender, ethnicity, or whatever, on the basis of names. They can draw out particular groups and target marketing campaigns at those particular groups. I acknowledge that that is perceived as a problem and, indeed, it probably is something of a problem. That is not the intention of electoral rolls, and we support the government in the notion that that needs to be corrected.

The Attorney commented that my pronunciation of the word 'primarily' made me sound American. That could be because I married an American and I am surrounded in my household by Americans. So I do not take offence at sounding American, and I will continue to pronounce that word as I choose.

The access provisions also deal with the issue of access by other people and, as I said, the provision for MPs differs from this house to the other house. I do not know whether the access, for instance, allows state members of the federal House of Representatives a different access. I assume they are allowed access to the commonwealth side of the roll only, rather than those who are enrolled on both commonwealth and state rolls, but I will be interested to explore that particular issue.

The bill makes provision for the Electoral Commissioner to gain access to Public Service information. I am sure that it is the bane of many people's lives that privacy legislation was ever introduced. I know that it is misused and abused frequently to the point where sensible people wanting to do sensible things are stopped from doing so because the person on the other end of the phone (if they are lucky enough to speak to a person these days) will say, 'No, we cannot do that because you are not the person. Privacy legislation prevents us from even discussing this with you.'

I have many examples of people coming to my office to complain that, even where they have held power of attorney on behalf of an aged parent, they are denied the ability to undertake activities on behalf of that person and do quite sensible things. I even had one case where the person was trying to put money into an account. I can understand someone having some difficulty because of privacy if you were trying to take money out of someone else's account, but for the life of me I cannot see why anyone would use privacy legislation to object to money being put into someone's account.

However, my comment in regard to privacy legislation is related to this bill in this way: the commissioner has had some potential difficulty in accessing information, for instance, from the board which keeps records of the students going into year 12 and undertaking SACE exams in this state, be they in private or public schools. Why does the commissioner want that information? The commissioner wants it so that she can write to those people and say, 'You are now turning 17. You are eligible to enrol to vote,' and thereby encourage them to vote.

We have no objection to the commissioner being able to gain access to that sort of information and to that being put into the legislation so that the commissioner can get that access. However, given our view that voting should not be compulsory—and, not only that, but if we get our way there will be no compulsion to enrol—we further take the view that when the Electoral Commissioner uses that information to write to anyone about matters concerning their entitlement to enrol, we think that it is appropriate that the Electoral Commissioner should also have to inform them that they are not obliged to.

Clearly, that position will change if the government is successful in making it compulsory to enrol. For the moment our position is that it is only reasonable that, if the commissioner can gain the information about who to write to from other Public Service departments and can send out a letter inviting them to enrol, we believe that if it is not compulsory to enrol then the commissioner has an obligation to make it abundantly clear, whilst inviting them to enrol and participate in the democratic process, that it is not compulsory to do so.

The next issue, again, is one which was the subject of a good deal of discussion, that of the enrolment of homeless and itinerant voters. I start from the proposition that lack of a home should never of itself disentitle someone from participating in the democratic process. Having said that, we then began to look how this might work.

According to the commissioner when we had the briefing, she was going to be following the process set by the commonwealth legislation, which I understand is not set into the legislation itself—it is basically the way they operate it—and the way they operate is this: first, they say that, if you are homeless and you wish to vote (and it will not be compulsory for the homeless or itinerant persons to vote or enrol anyway, even if the rest of the provisions are approved), where are you going to be enrolled?

According to the commissioner, the very first place for the enrolment to be made is at the person's previous place of enrolment which may or may not be a relevant consideration. For instance, if we put aside the homeless people sleeping rough in the city and we think about people who are perhaps grey nomads who are travelling around the country, who have not even disposed of their home but have left their home for more than the requisite one month plus three weeks, they are no longer strictly speaking entitled to vote at the point where they were enrolled. They should be entitled to enrol to vote.

Bearing in mind that we are dealing with various sorts of people who may be homeless, itinerant or otherwise not in a stable living situation but wishing to vote. The first preference is that they be enrolled in their previous place of enrolment. That can lead to the odd situation where someone who was enrolled 20 years ago in Queensland (their only previous place of enrolment because they have been itinerant for many years) lands in the city of Adelaide and seeks to have enrolment.

The previous place of enrolment in that case would not be relevant because it is not in South Australia. What about if someone was enrolled in Port Lincoln 20 years ago, and not enrolled subsequently, and had not voted for many years, and they are now in the city of Adelaide? Is it appropriate for them to be enrolled to vote in Port Lincoln in the seat of Flinders? If we do not find a satisfactory previous place of enrolment, as I have indicated, I think that there are problems with the way that is defined in itself, and the way I understand the commissioner's explanation that would work.

However, let us assume for the moment that they have never been enrolled, so there is no previous place of enrolment or no relevant previous place of enrolment. They may have been overseas, interstate or something. If that does not exist, then the current enrolment of the next of kin will become the enrolment place. Again, that seems to me to be a little odd. I could have a brother from whom I am completely estranged, have been for years and years, who is living rough on the streets of Adelaide, but that person, under this provision, would be entitled to seek enrolment and be enrolled in my electorate. Why? What is their connection to my electorate? In reality, there is none.

If that does not work, then the third option is the place of birth. Again, that may not be a relevant consideration. We are talking about enrolment for state purposes, so that will be a relevant consideration only for those who were born in South Australia. For anyone else, their place of birth will be overseas or in another state or territory. That will not be relevant when coming to a conclusion about where they should be enrolled.

If they all fail—if we have a failure of the previous place of enrolment, a failure of the next of kin, a failure of the place of birth—we then get to the point of this person's connection. I suspect that, in the case of the homeless, that is likely to be the seat of Adelaide in this state. I say that because I have had discussions, over a long period of time, with many people who now live in the seat of Adelaide. I have also, in the past, been the shadow minister for housing, and I know that we had figures of something like 800 people living rough on the streets of Adelaide, and a further 3,500 to 4,000 people who are called 'secondary homeless', who are not in stable accommodation, who are couch surfing, who are in shelters of various sorts, who are simply not in stable accommodation.

They tend to come here because this is where services, such as shelters, meals, and so on, are provided. That then means that the people who live in the seat of Adelaide are understandably a little concerned that the outcome of this provision, if it comes in, will be to unreasonably put a burden onto this seat in terms of having a whole lot of people who will be entitled to vote.

My personal view is that, whilst, as I said, I absolutely endorse the entitlement of someone to participate in our democracy—and they should not be disentitled just because they do not have a home or a permanent home—my guess is that, for the most part, people who are sleeping rough and people who are secondary homeless have far more important, immediate issues to deal with rather than voting. They are likely to be, first and foremost, concerned about putting a roof over their head to protect them from the weather, and so on, getting some food and clothing, and getting the basics in place, than with voting.

The system that is being proposed has some merit, but it does, I think, expose some difficulties. In fact, I think it is fraught with difficulties when you start looking at the detail of how it will be applied in practice. There is a risk that such people could be persuaded to vote by being given meals and by being picked up and bussed to polling booths, and so on. They could be persuaded to enrol to vote, and all that sort of thing.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who would they vote for if they did that?

Mrs REDMOND: The new minister for corrections asked me who they would vote for if they did that, and that possibly exposes some of my emerging cynicism about the motivation behind this legislation. It seems to me that this legislation is motivated almost entirely by self-interest on the part of the government. However, that is not where our debate should be. As I said before the lunch break, this is really important legislation. I hope that there will be vigorous debate in this chamber about the provisions in this legislation, because it really is important for people to understand that at least some of what is at risk is our freedom of political expression.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Oh, come on!

Mrs REDMOND: The minister for corrections calls scoffingly across the chamber as though that is not genuinely under threat here. However, I say to the minister: it is. It is if you stop people putting up signs; it is if you stop parliamentary parties from registering when they have a right to, or from standing for an election because six months have not elapsed, and so on.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The minister is making the mistake of not having listened to what I said before lunch on a range of issues. If he reads the Hansard from before lunch he will see that I indicated that we have no difficulty in principle with what I believe the government is trying to achieve with parts of this legislation, that is, from whatever party—major party, minor party, Independent—we all want to make sure that people going to the polls are not misled. There is absolutely no argument about that, but I do have some serious concerns about how we might best achieve some of those things.

In summary, on the issue of homelessness, I have to say that, although the Liberal Party does not believe that homelessness should of itself disentitle a person to vote or to participate, the implementation seems to us to be so fraught with difficulty, so open to abuse, and so inconsistent with the principles of the integrity of the electoral roll that, at this stage, we are not prepared to support it, although, as I said, we remain open to coming up with a scheme which would entitle that participation. If there are homeless people who want to vote, I think we should find a way for them to do it, if they generally do want to participate.

The legislation goes on to state that if a homeless person goes through this process, gets themselves registered and then fails to vote, they will be automatically struck off the roll. That strikes me as a little odd, given that other people who are eligible to vote and do not, simply get a letter or, theoretically, under some of the other provisions, a fine for not voting.

We then come to perhaps the nub of the issue that the Minister for Correctional Services was raising, and that is the publication of matter regarding candidates. As the minister suggested, I would be very concerned if someone was able to change their name to Isobel Redmond and stand as Isobel Redmond.

I would also be concerned if Joe Bloggs was able to put out a how to vote card for Isobel Redmond that, in fact, directed preferences away from me. However, I think that that is already dealt with under the act. I think that that would already be an offence under the act.

We have to walk a very fine line because we want to make sure that people are not being misled but, on the other hand, we want to make sure that there is a freedom of the individual to participate in the democratic process. For instance, I have no difficulty with the idea that someone who is politically engaged, likes watching parliament in progress and listening to the news on the radio and watching it on the TV, who is keenly interested in politics, why should not that person, when an election comes along, be free to put out their own how to vote card according to how they think the preferences should be distributed, so long as they put on the bottom of it, like everyone else has to, 'Authorised by Joe Bloggs from' their genuine address? I have no difficulty with people being free to participate in the electoral process in that way.

My reading of the legislation suggests to me that that will become a problem if these proposals are implemented. That is, that an ordinary person, not a candidate, not a party, just someone who is interested and who wants to participate by saying to their neighbours and the electorate at large in which they live, 'This is what I think. This is how I see these things, and if I were you I would vote this way,' and puts out a how to vote card. That appears to be a problem under this proposal.

One of the other problems that was raised in the briefing and that was not able to be adequately addressed by the staff and the commissioner who attended, was the problem that there is already, we think, a fair old capacity to mislead, because if you register a ticket there is no requirement that that ticket actually bear any relationship to your how to vote.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: That is what I am saying. There is no requirement at the moment that there be any consistency between your registered ticket and a registered how to vote, or a how to vote ticket that has been printed, not even registered. So, in that sense I think there already exists a problem.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: As the minister says, what if I quit the Liberal Party at the last minute before an election? I think that there are issues here about openness, accountability and transparency in going to an election, but I do not think that what the government has proposed is necessarily the way to address those issues. It seems to me that there is a range of issues that we need to explore in terms of achieving some of the things that we are all agreed on.

As I said, in principle we are all agreed that we do not want someone to be able to mislead the public by pretending to be something or someone that they are not, or by pretending to direct preferences in a way that they are actually not directing them, but I am not sure that these provisions actually achieve that outcome.

The bill also contains a range of what I would call relatively minor issues that are addressed, some little things about scrutineers and various technical type amendments that I think are worthwhile and that we are certainly not opposed to. However, given that we are opposed to what I would call the most fundamental provisions of the bill, that is, the idea that we are going to restrict electoral advertising to the point where it cannot be on a public road or a public place and that we are going to make it compulsory to enrol, those things, I think, are fundamental.

So, whilst there are some provisions that we will support, there are so many that we find objectionable that we are opposing this bill. We are prepared to sit and talk and negotiate about how we might achieve some of the outcomes that I am sure we all desire, but we will be opposing the bill in its present form.

I look forward to the passage of this bill to the committee stage, because there will be some very interesting questions that need to be addressed as we go through from point to point on the issues, some of which I have covered. I have not delved into all of the detail, but you would appreciate from the matters that I have raised that there are numerous questions which remain to be answered before anyone has clarity about, not the intentions of the bill but how this bill will operate in its actual practical application on the citizens of this state.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (16:52): I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in relation to—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr RAU: Well, I like to be judicious in selecting time in which to speak. Obviously, I have listened with some interest to the member for Heysen's contribution and, as always, if I might be so bold as to say so, it was a little long but well considered. She raised a number of points, which I am sure she raised quite genuinely and on which I think we should have some constructive debate in the chamber. Hopefully, some of what I say will be a contribution in that direction.

I want to make a preliminary remark about what she described on a number of occasions as her cynicism. When I listened to her talking about that, and particularly about the enrolment of people who are homeless, I wondered whether she was amongst the select group who believes that the moon landing in 1969 was actually staged at Paramount Studios and that Elvis is still living somewhere in Hawaii. There are some things—

Mr Bignell: Elvis lives in Torrensville.

Mr RAU: Yes; Elvis is alive and well in Torrensville. I will now move from the general to the specific and, first of all, I want to deal with the issue of corflutes. I think this matter was addressed in a fair way by the honourable member in that she recognised what I believe to be the absolute truth, an undeniable truth, a self-evident truth, that is, most members of the public consider corflutes to be an irritation and an offence to their eyes and, in some cases, they are actually dangerous.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not mine.

Mr RAU: Except those of the member for West Torrens. In some cases, they are dangerous because they obscure things like school crossings and various other things. Overwhelmingly, the public's view is, 'Get rid of the things. We are sick of them.' I do not think that we as legislators should automatically reject what is clearly the general public's view about this issue simply because we consider, for one reason or another, that it might be convenient for us to ignore it.

I know that happens from time to time and that there might be people who would raise issues such as capital parliament and so on as an illustration of when we do that. However, to be honest, I do not think that capital punishment and corflutes are in the same ballpark. It occurs to me that it would not be a bad idea for us to take some notice of what the general public think about them.

Secondly, the attack on the proposition comes from the point of view that somehow democracy and freedom of speech, which are very broad concepts, have corflutes as an integral, almost constitutionally guaranteed element. That cannot possibly be right. You can still have corflutes on private property, you can still send mail to people, you can still advertise in the media, you can still deliver pamphlets to homes and you can still hold public meetings, all of which are totally unencumbered by these proposals.

The way I urge the honourable member to consider this issue is by taking the same approach that is sometimes used in the courts, where we take a hypothetical and see how it plays out. For argument's sake, let us assume that in Australia it had become political convention for candidates seeking election to drive up and down the streets in large vehicles with megaphones festooned around the top of the car whilst they sing and call out to people, 'Hey, you; vote for me. Hey, you; vote for me,' and they—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr RAU: Exactly—did it day in, day out, up and down the streets. The average person would form the view, quite reasonably, that if they could not concentrate even on Deal or No Deal because these lunatics were driving up and down the street making all this noise they would not want to have it any more. Surely, in that hypothetical example, we would not say that it was a fundamental attack on freedom of speech to remove these noisy bits and pieces from the political landscape. It would not render Australia North Korea. It would not cause any trouble at all.

This is exactly the same sort of proposition and the same example as the corflutes. They are a particular artefact we happen to have developed, for reasons that are no doubt lost in the mists of time, and they irritate the living daylights out of a lot of people. As the honourable member quite rightly said, they are a nuisance to put up, they are a nuisance to deal with and they are a nuisance to pull down.

Except for the fact that, as the member pointed out, some corflutes are artfully decorated and you get to keep them, there is really not much to recommend them. So, with the greatest respect, the idea that the ban is in some way an attack on democracy is unsustainable. It is simply an attack on or prevention of an offensive mode of campaigning. It does not stop campaigning generally, nor does it affect freedom of speech generally or anything else, so I am not persuaded by the member's argument.

More particularly, as to the first example of her thinking that Elvis is alive and well in Hawaii, which came up in the context of saying that the measure will be repealed automatically in 2014, rather than seeing that as a cynical matter, I would have thought the member would see it as a sunset clause whereby this issue gets to run for a couple of elections: if everyone likes it, it is extended indefinitely; if people do not like it, at that stage it comes off and we can all go and get fresh photos. It might be great for the member for Croydon. The idea that he is photographed without dark hair and seated in front of a microphone might be a welcome change for people in his electorate.

Another point the honourable member made was about movable advertising on the road. I agree with her that a reading of the bill means that that is, prima facie, unacceptable. It would be necessary for an exemption to be obtained; as the honourable member would see, that is provided for in the bill. She has an undertaking from the Attorney about that, and she may take that as being of value or not.

If, in the end, that is the only matter about which members of the opposition are concerned, I suppose an amendment could be moved to establish that point if that is really the tipping point on this measure. I can make clear that, as far as I am aware, nobody has any intention of preventing a member of parliament driving around with their name on their vehicle.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr RAU: I acknowledge what the honourable member said and, absent the prescription under the act, that would be the effect. But if that is what the opposition is worried about, why does it not move an amendment that says, 'But you can have stuff on your car.' If that is what you want, put it in there and then you do not have to rely on the Attorney's undertaking that he will gazette something for you.

The second thing is the registration issue, and I just want to say a few things about that. First, there is a distinction, and it seems to get lost. With respect to the member for Heysen, I think that in her remarks it was not properly explained, but there is a distinction between registered as a political party and having a right to appear on a ballot paper. The two are not the same thing.

Whether or not you are registered as a political party, the provisions relating to registration will not affect your ability to be able to stand on a ballot paper, and if—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr RAU: No; but if you are particularly agitated about an issue you can run at an election, you can put your name on there and no-one can stop you. The fact that you are not registered as a political party makes no difference at all to your entitlement. I ask the honourable member to consider this, and there is nothing like examples to give one something to consider. The honourable member for Mount Gambier has been in this place for a while and he is not a part of a registered political party. The honourable member for MacKillop originally came into this place not as a member of a registered political party. The member for Fisher has for many years not been a part of a registered political party.

The member for Mitchell has, I agree, been at different points a member of a political party, but at the last election was elected as a person not a member of a political party. Of course, the member for Frome is a person who was elected not a member of a political party. The former speaker, I believe, was elected as a person—not former immediately but the former, former speaker—not a member of a political party, and there are many other examples. So, to suggest that not being part of a registered political party will in some way impede a person's opportunity to get elected to parliament, I think, with respect, is not sustained. Of course, the greatest example of this, where you would expect the prejudice to the candidate to be the most significant, is the Hon. Nick Xenophon as he used to be, now senator Xenophon.

Senator Xenophon, who has never been on any list as a member of a political party, managed to get nearly three quotas in the Legislative Council running as an individual, not as a registered political party—he nearly got three quotas, and he easily achieved a single quota for the Senate at the last election. The suggestion that not being a registered political party is in some way, in any way, synonymous with impeding the opportunity of a citizen to participate in the democratic process is, with respect, not sustained by the facts. It just is not sustained by the facts.

The next point the honourable member raised related to names. I have had a look at the provisions, as no doubt the honourable member has, and I found the way they have been expressed to be a bit odd. However, I would say that—and I am sure the honourable member for Heysen would agree with me—what the government is trying to do is to deal with what you and I as lawyers might regard in the business context as 'passing off'.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr RAU: Yes. I do not know what debate has gone on between the honourable member and the Attorney about the exact way this act should express 'passing off' as being an unsatisfactory bit of behaviour, but the intent is pretty clear. I have to say that, having read the legislation and looked at the example that is presented there, it is pretty clear what the legislation is trying to say, and it is that you do not deliberately confuse you with someone else's brand name. For other members who are present, this is like me opening a hamburger store and calling it Mac's or MacHeysen or MacUnley and people might think, 'Ah, are these part of that wonderful great golden arches crowd or not?' That is called 'passing off'.

You take someone else's business name and you create something so close to it that you create in the mind of the uninformed a confusion as to whether you are you or whether you are in fact them. In other words, you are pinching some of their goodwill. That is what it is about—passing off. The situation is that that should not be allowed to occur in political contests, and I would be interested to hear whether the honourable member has a better way of drafting that provision than is presently there. I must say that, having read the examples that are part of that provision, I thought it was made pretty clear. The honourable member would note there that the examples talk about the Labor Party, and 'Labor' is in bold. They talk about the Liberal Party and 'Liberal' is in bold, the idea being that someone who runs in Heysen cannot run as the 'Happy Liberal' or the 'Green Liberal' or the—

Mr Pisoni: Isobel is both those—happy and green!

Mr RAU: She may be happy and green, and good luck to her, but the point is that she does not want someone ripping off the goodwill, such as it is that exists in the seat of Heysen for members of the Liberal Party, by using that word 'Liberal'. Now, of course, if she or her party were happy to have another person run in her seat as a 'Happy Liberal' and the Liberal Party did not object to it, then, go for it. That is the situation with Country Labor. Labor does not object to Country Labor calling itself Country Labor. 'Labor' is our brand, not yours. We are entitled to let people—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr RAU: That is a debate for somewhere else, I think. There is a saying—I think it is from The Tempest—that misery acquaints people with strange bedfellows. The fact that you are so disappointed by what happened in Frome should not allow you to be distracted by making assertions such as that which really are unsustainable.

The last point is about itinerants. I am pleased to hear that the opposition does not have a problem with itinerants being registered. I think we all would agree that that is a reasonable proposition. However, one of the problems with itinerants (and I do not know how we get around this) is that they do not have anywhere to live. It is a terrible thing, but the homeless do not have homes! So, in order to give them the opportunity to vote—because we do not have a nebulous collection of 'and others' because there is not a seat here called 'and others'—they have to be put somewhere. As far as the Legislative Council is concerned, that is easy, because they are nowhere and somewhere at the same time. However, for those of us in this chamber it is a little difficult.

So, the honourable member has gone through the formula that appears in the act. Quite frankly, whatever we do to allocate the homeless to a geographical spot will be arbitrary, because they are homeless; they do not have a home. If they happen to be living in your electorate today, they could be in mine tomorrow and the honourable member for Fisher's the day after that, or they might decide that they want to hang out in West Torrens. Who knows where they are going to be?

My suggestion is that we could do it alphabetically. We could say, 'Okay, we just run them through.' Or, even better, we do it by numbers. We count to 47. The first 47 homeless each get a seat at random, then we do it again: 47, 47. Okay, so they are split everywhere. That would be a terrific way to do it. Or we could say that they all go into Heysen, or Enfield. Or we could have the formula that is in there now. The intractable problem is that they do not live anywhere. So, whatever you do will necessarily, to some extent, be artificial. It has to be, because they do not live anywhere.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing what the alternative proposal is to allocate these people to an electorate. We could do it balloting; we could do it like Keno and have these names popping up on a TV screen, like they do at the hotel. I have seen this happen. These little numbers come out and get bigger and bigger and land on a dart board type effect. We could have all the names of homeless people getting randomly allocated to different seats. Is that what you want to do? Okay, do it. Put it in the bill if you think that is fairer.

I think, with respect, one has to say that the people drafting the bill have tried to find some arbitrary way of doing it (which it has to be) which is as vaguely related to commonsense as possible. However, we could use a mathematical or algebraic formula, or perhaps convert everyone's name into music and then play a tune and see where it takes us; you could do it any way, really. There is any number of ways that you could do it.

However, at the end of the day, if they are not living anywhere, they are not living anywhere. With respect to the point about the fact that they are taken off the roll if something goes wrong whereas other people are sent a letter, well, hello! If you do not live anywhere, where is your letterbox? Big problem: you do not have a letterbox. You have a car window or a rubbish bin next to your bench or a beautiful tree: you do not have a letterbox.

The Hon. R.B. Such: No junk mail, either.

Mr RAU: No junk mail, either; that is the good side of it. I will be interested in whether members of the opposition are able to at least think about some of those points and address them, because it would be a shame if what in fact is not a fundamental difference in principle between members of the Opposition and the government about what this legislation is trying to achieve should be lost and the opportunity lost to do it in a harmonious sort of way, if we are really just talking about particular drafting details.

I accept that we may have a fundamental difference about corflutes. However, for the reasons I have just explained, I do not think that really stands up to critical analysis. As for the other matters, hopefully, some discussion up to and including the committee stage should be able to resolve them. If someone can solve the vexed question of where you put people who do not have a home, I think they should offer that suggestion to the Attorney.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:11): There is no doubt that matters relating to elections need reform in this state, and I think this bill has a lot of good measures in it. I think that, ideally, something in the area of reform should be put together under the aegis of, say, a retired judge, with other equally independent people.

There will always be a problem when a party in government puts forward so-called electoral reform. It does not matter which party it is, there will always be that difficulty because, generally, parties will naturally seek to entrench themselves and their interests. My fundamental concern with this bill is that it is not coming from an inquiry chaired by someone who is genuinely independent—as I said, a retired judge or someone like that: it is coming from the government of the day, obviously, and that government has a vested interest, because it is a government as a result of being a political party that has a majority in this house. So, that is my fundamental problem with this bill.

As I said, there are aspects of the bill that are good and long overdue, and there are some matters that are not dealt with in this bill. Obviously, I will not have time to canvass all aspects, but I will deal with a couple of them. I think that requiring a party to have 500 members instead of 150 is an onerous and excessive requirement. Obviously, I am not currently a member of a party, but I think it is an unfair requirement. It is far too high to be used as the bar.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What number?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Even 100 or 150, I think, is more appropriate. I think that some of the other requirements here are questionable, and I will get onto some of them in a minute.

One aspect of electoral reform that has happened during my time here is the reform of the boundaries and the changes that occur after each election. I think that there is a case for changing the boundaries after every second election, because I do not think that the changes generally are so dramatic that the boundaries are required to be changed after each election. Clearly, that is not dealt with in this bill before us. What members, I am sure, have experienced is that they get to know an area and the people get to know them and then, whoop, away go the boundaries and the world has changed. Some might argue that that is fair enough, why should the incumbent have any particular advantage? The reality is that this bill (like the current situation) favours the incumbent, and that means that it favours me as much as it favours other members in here—some, I guess, more than others.

The reality is that it is very difficult for someone to challenge an incumbent if an incumbent has been doing a reasonably good job as a local member, given the resources and the advantages we have through being able to contact electors. Those sort of benefits are not readily available to a challenger. Some of those aspects are available as you get closer to the election. One of them is that the names and addresses of people in the electorate where, for example, there is a boundary change, become available to the incumbent of the electorate six months before the election. However, we have an ironic twist there that, if the challenger belongs to a major party, then they have access to that information well before the six months because they get it through their party friends and affiliates.

That situation is farcical and I think that it is one of the few where the challenger has any sort of advantage, because most advantage rests with the incumbent, whether it is financial or whatever. It is one of the reasons why—and we can see it more and more in Australia—that it is very difficult to defeat an incumbent government or an incumbent in a seat because of the inherited advantages that accrue to incumbents.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What about Joe Scalzi? What about Dorothy Kotz? What about Joan Hall?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The minister is asking about those particular individuals. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is very difficult to challenge an incumbent who has been doing their job. We can question whether those particular individuals were effective as local members, but my point is that, if a member is doing their job conscientiously, thoroughly and effectively, then it is very hard to defeat them. You could argue that the system is geared very much towards the incumbent. One could argue that this bill, in effect, could be called the 'Extend the Incumbency Bill', because that is precisely what it will do.

I am not saying that the government is putting it forward to get some particular advantage, but the reality is that incumbents have an enormous advantage, and so does an incumbent government. It is only in special circumstances, for example, in Western Australia—and I think possibly soon in New South Wales—that the incumbent government is defeated.

There are some other changes that I think are long overdue. I support, in principle, allowing the homeless to vote, as I do, indeed, prisoners. I do not think you should have all your rights removed from you because you go to gaol, or, because you are homeless, that you should be denied an opportunity to have a say. As the member for Enfield and others have pointed out, it is not easy to provide a mechanism in which the homeless can have a meaningful say. The fact that they are homeless probably indicates that they have not had a meaningful say in many things in their life.

Currently people with dementia in our society can vote, or, in reality, their relatives vote for them. I think that is an area that needs to be tightened up considerably, because the reality is that, in nursing homes—and whilst at many elections it may not get down to one or two votes—you can vote or be voting and not really know what you are voting about. You could argue that there are many people in that category who may not have dementia, but in a nursing home a relative can (putting it politely) guide the vote or the voting intention. That could determine the outcome of an election, determine the government. You could have a government determined as a result of dementia. That would be a pretty good outcome, I am sure.

I have canvassed this aspect—and it is still before the house—of creating the opportunity for people from the age of 16 (on an optional basis) to be able to enrol to cast a vote. It happens elsewhere in the world. I have mentioned previously the Isle of Man and so on. It would be an optional thing. The argument that you do not know what you are doing at 16 or 17 is a silly argument because, at that age, you are allowed to join the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. So are people saying that, at that age, they do not know what they are doing consciously in terms of joining a party? I think there is a case for allowing those aged 16 or 17 to vote in a state election on an optional basis. It will not happen very often, if you think about it, because of the cycle of elections.

I think that, in a democracy, it is hard to argue against the concept of allowing people to have a meaningful say. I suppose it is the same argument that is used in relation to the homeless. Let them have a say. They live in the community, they are subject to its laws: let them have a say. You can argue the same for 16 and 17 year olds: let them have a say, if they choose. I suspect the reason the government is not keen on it is that, under my proposal, it would have an optional element to it, and in this bill it wants to tighten up the compulsory voting aspect.

In relation to signage, it would be good if we could somehow limit the number of posters that are put up so that we do not get a confetti effect down many of our main roads. I am not sure how you can tackle this. I think the member for Mitchell is going to raise this through an amendment possibly limiting the number of signs per electorate. I do not know how you would enforce that. You would have to go around on a 10 speed pushbike to count them. I suspect this measure would work against challengers, because, as I said at the start, the incumbent has an advantage in that generally, if they are doing their job, they are well known. So it is going to work against the challenger, because the challenger is the one who is trying to get a presence to be seen and recognised in the community.

The Attorney is very proud of the fact that he is using posters which came from the ark—I think Noah helped with the photography. He is very proud of that because he says it does not matter that the photograph does not look quite like him in the current context. I notice that there was a very cruel letter in The Courier attacking the member for Heysen suggesting that she does not look like what she looked like in the photo that appeared in the posters during the last election. I thought that was a very cruel and heartless letter. As we know, none of the women in here age; it is only the blokes who look a bit older. That was a very cruel letter, and I hope I never confront the person who wrote that letter because I thought it was a particularly low act to write such a letter attacking the member for Heysen.

Putting aside the question of what we may look like on the poster, I think there should be some consistency or congruence in relation to advertising between the state and commonwealth provisions and at the moment there is not, and I think there should be.

There is a range of other provisions. One that is not specifically tackled, and it is very difficult to know how to tackle it, is the creation of a dummy candidate. Some people who are unkind might suggest there are quite a few of these, but this is where a party or group runs someone knowing that that person has no real intention of being the member but is there really as a spoiler designed to prevent someone else being elected. This bill, on my reading of it, does not deal with that and it is not easy to see how you could deal with the issue of the dummy candidate. You would have to have some sort of torture chamber, probably, to interrogate someone to find out their real intention. But we all know that from time to time there is a dummy candidate.

The other aspects in this bill, as I say, I think are quite reasonable. One could go on for quite a while, and I will not, about whether the party names we currently have are misnomers. Is the Liberal Party a liberal party and is the Labor Party really a labour party? We could argue that for quite a while. Even the term 'independent' can be questioned. How independent does someone have to be before they can be called independent? Independent from what and whom? Once again, it is not an easy matter to resolve.

My prediction is that this bill will run into difficulties in the other place. We still have not heard what the government plans to do in relation to the upper house and whether it is still pushing for abolition. I suspect that will not happen. I suspect it might put up some reform proposals. That would be more fundamental reform than some of the things that are currently proposed in this bill.

This bill is a mixed bag. It is a potpourri. As I say, there are many good things in it but many potential reforms have been left out. That is because this has come to us not via an independent reviewing panel chaired by someone such as a retired judge, but it has been put forward by the government—and I accept in good faith and not in any sinister way. However, unless and until you do it via an independent body based on recommendations that canvass the whole community, what you will end up with is a partisan approach to the state's electoral system. I will watch with interest what happens and, certainly during the committee stage, will be interested in some of the specific proposals contained in this bill.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:27): I would like to make some observations and perhaps speculate, if you like, on the motivation for this bill that is before us. I think the first question we should ask is this. The Attorney-General's remarks on the second reading of the bill explain that this has been around for some time and includes some additional matters that were raised after the 2002 election: but, of course, it is 2009 now, and what is the difference between 2002 and 2009? The difference is that in 2002 the Labor Party was a minority government. It needed to win more seats at the next election, so it had to expose its candidates to the public. So it had every opportunity—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who won in a landslide?

Mr PISONI: The Minister for Youth has confirmed my argument in his interjection. They had a big win. They used everything that was available to them but, of course, they were looking to increase their membership of the House of Assembly so they had to expose their candidates. They did not choose the period between 2002 and 2006 to bring in this legislation to restrict the use of posters—election posters, in particular. They did not use that period because they had a motivation, and that motivation was to win more seats at the next election: and they knew that, to expose their candidates who did not have a profile, they needed every possible means. All we saw on television, of course, was Mike Rann, and we are still seeing him on TV today, but the difference is this time we are seeing him through taxpayer-funded advertising.

So one has to ask the question: why now, and why not in early 2006 when the government was returned? I will tell you why not. When they were returned in 2006, government members were very pleased with the election result and I congratulate them. It was a great election result for them. They had a record majority and they were boasting to everybody that it would be at least 2014 before there would be any hint of a change of government. They were boasting that it would be at least 2014.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who said that?

Mr PISONI: Michael Atkinson, as both the individual and the minister, interjected that across the chamber time and time again. He said things like: 'How old will you be in 2014?'

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: How old will you be in 2014?

Mr PISONI: I will be a lot younger than Michael Atkinson in 2014, that is for sure. Another giveaway that the government is getting scared at the moment and bringing in this legislation is that it has started digging the trenches and bringing in the tanks in the lead-up to the election. Government members are looking for any possible thing that they can do to protect their incumbent seats, and the first thing they are doing is tinkering with what suits them in the Electoral Act.

If the government were genuine about electoral reform, it would have a complete review of the act, including whether candidates are able to hand out how-to-vote cards on polling day and the size of signage. It is different from state to state and from federal level to state level. One could argue that some of these things should be changed to bring them in line with the federal rules but, at the same time, we are moving away from what is happening federally.

For example, the election posters on Stobie poles are a classic example. That is allowed at a federal level, yet we are told that one of the reasons for these changes is to bring some of the Electoral Act in South Australia into line with the federal act while at the same time moving it further away. One really must ask oneself: what is the government's motivation for bringing in this measure at this time?

We have missed the opportunity to debate optional preferential voting and voluntary voting. These things should be debated and discussed in a full review of the electoral system, not cherry-picked for what suits the incumbent government or the Labor Party. If you are true to democracy and you believe that democracy is the best system we have, and if you want to defend and expand democracy, you will not have any problem in having a full review of the electoral system. That is why we are opposing the restrictions on the election posters.

As to compulsory enrolment, it is a curious issue because at the moment it is compulsory to vote under commonwealth law, and you have to make a considered contribution—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The minister is interjecting and I am getting no protection from the chair. However, I was arguing that there is a lack of consistency—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley will take his seat. The minister will show the same respect to the member for Unley that the member for Unley always shows to other members on their feet.

Mr PISONI: Are you referring only to question time, sir, or the whole time?

The SPEAKER: The whole time.

Mr PISONI: The point I am making is about the inconsistency of the government in its argument for these changes, and the point I am making on compulsory enrolment is that you have to make a conscious decision not to enrol on the state roll when you enrol on the federal. So, this bill will deliberately take away the rights people have now to decline to participate for whatever reason they might have for not turning up at a polling booth on polling day.

They might choose not to do that and they have every right to do that. We believe that as a political party: if you want to stay at home on election day and do nothing but scratch your arse, you are entitled to do so. That is what we believe on election day because we are true democrats. Compulsory voting makes political parties lazy because you do not have to get out there to get people to participate in the political process, you just have to convince them to vote for you. They have to get out anyway.

We are actually robbing our constituents of a full political debate by having compulsory attendance at a polling booth, but that is an argument for another day. We, as a party, have a policy of allowing people to choose whether they wish to vote or turn up to a polling booth; that is why we oppose the compulsory enrolment element of the bill.

Contributions have been made about registration of political parties. We will see how that develops as the bill moves along, as with access to electoral rolls. I think the interesting one that we should be discussing is the key section of the bill, which is open to the Labor Party organisation and practices common in Labor Party branch stacking organisations in the Eastern States and here in South Australia. There are some pretty horrific situations of the Labor Party and its union base—and, of course, it relies on its system of Amway. I describe it as Amway.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: And you'd know.

Mr PISONI: How would I know about Amway? I know about the Labor Party and their multilevel marketing. The more members you have at the bottom, it pushes you up and, finally, you get a seat in parliament. It just depends on what faction you choose. I think the interesting—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Do you want to make comments outside? Make some comments outside. You will not walk out this door and not use the protection of parliament, will you, to make accusations about me? You will not do it, will you, because you can handle only one lawsuit at once. Is that right?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: argument between members is not allowed. The member should be addressing all of his remarks through you, sir.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think it is best if we move on. The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: There are examples of the way the Labor Party is good at rounding up people in buses and getting them out to meetings. They do capitalise on the fact that people might not know how the system works, but they are always happy to help them. I have a quote here from 2003:

The National President of the ALP, Greg Sword, yesterday declared one third of Victorian Labor's 12,000-strong membership to be branch stacked, calling for penalties to be imposed on MPs and party members found guilty of the practice.

Mrs GERAGHTY: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have been listening to the member's contribution, if you could call it that—

An honourable member: Diatribe.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Diatribe, exactly. He is straying into areas that I think have nothing to do with this bill at all, and he is picking out one word from a clause and then waffling away on some other tangent. I think he should come back to the bill before he gets himself and his backside into trouble.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Torrens will take her seat. I have listened to what the member for Unley says. The chair traditionally does give a fair amount of latitude to members giving their contributions. Goodness me, we would almost have nothing to do if we kept strictly to the matters before us, but I will—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General is warned. The member for Unley has the call.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, sir. The member for Torrens has every opportunity to speak to this bill, and I look forward to hearing her contribution. Mr Sword said that up to 70 per cent of branch members paid annual memberships of $29, 'a concessional rate that "assisted” those who are involved in branch-stacking activity.' He went on to say:

There is a deep suspicion in the party that the majority of those (concessional members) are stacked. We say there is a serious problem that the party needs to deal with.

The Labor Party has form in manipulating electoral systems, and they do it enormously and ruthlessly in their own party. One of the arguments that the Attorney-General gave us as to why a political party needs to be registered for six months before it can participate in the election process is that their bona fides need to be checked out. However, there is nothing in place in the legislation to ensure that we do not see rorting of the system by the Labor Party—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: —at state elections. We know what this is about. This is all about securing the seat, holding a 1 per cent margin, or thereabouts, and the state seat of Adelaide, and several other—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's 10 per cent.

Mr PISONI: One per cent for free is what they want to hang on to. The electoral pendulum swings; we know that. There are probably around 400 homeless people who would be able to register themselves in Adelaide to do that. Then the ALP bus would run around picking up them all and saying, 'Look, if you're having trouble with that ballot paper we can help. Don't worry about that, we can help you do that.' That is, of course, what happens in Labor Party branches around the country. A lot of it happens, of course, in the Eastern States. I do not want that ugly Eastern States stuff over here in South Australia. We have more dignity in South Australia.

In an article in The Age, written on 19 March 2005, Ian Munro describes an incident that happened in Footscray. He writes:

A Tarago van pulled up outside a Footscray Scoot hall. The passengers were members of the Turkish and Vietnamese communities from the western suburbs.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley will take his seat. Point of order, the minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: While interesting—and I would like to know more about the event myself—I do not know what relevance it has to this bill. It is in Victoria.

The SPEAKER: I do not know what relevance there is but, no doubt, it will become apparent.

Mr PISONI: It is very relevant, sir. The point I am making is that the Labor Party is one party nationwide. If you step out of line in the Labor Party, you are expelled. The Liberal Party is a party of individuals. It is a strength of our party and it is a weakness of our party, I will give you that, but we can put our constituents before our party any time we like without consequence. In the Labor Party, if you vote against the party line, you are out.

I tell you now, when I tell my school groups that come through here that the rules of the Labor Party are that you cannot put your constituent first, they are horrified to hear that you must vote for the party before you vote for your constituents. They think it is outrageous, and that is why it is called 'the machine', and that is why we are a party of individuals, because we can represent our constituents. You cannot. Your masters are the Labor Party. Your masters are the machine; ours are our constituents, and that is a fact. You are masters of manipulating the electoral system, and that is why you want to put these changes through the Electoral Act at the last minute. That is why you want to do it. The article states:

Under Labor Party rules, members are allowed to ask for assistance in completing the sometimes complicated papers that elect local officials as delegates to a state conference.

Of course, ballot papers of state elections can be quite complicated, too. So, of course, there will be plenty of helpers out there.

We have to remember why these people are homeless. They are struggling. They have personal issues. They have other sorts of issues. They are not necessarily able to make their own decisions. But, of course, there will be that friendly Labor Party member who will be happy to help them decide just where it is that they should be putting their number on the ballot paper. The Labor Party has form on this.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Tell us about the Kings Park branch, isn't that in your electorate?

Mr PISONI: No, Kings Park is in the seat of Ashford, Mr Attorney-General. You are slipping. You used to know every detail about every electorate. You must be too busy opening your own mail. I read that in the paper the other day—you open your own mail?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, I do.

Mr PISONI: Yes; so probably not busy enough running your department if you have time to open your own mail.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: What, with a letter opener? The article goes on:

Every single one of the Tarago passengers, however good their English...skills, asked for help.

That is the claim in this article. It continues:

'Tables are provided in the voting area,' a party member recalled this week. 'They sit down in the voting area in a group'—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley will take his seat. The member for Enfield.

Mr RAU: It is a point of clarification, really. Would it be in order for the member for Unley to just read to us from the phone book, because it would be equally relevant to what we are getting now? He has not moved to that yet.

The SPEAKER: I guess it would depend on what he was reading from the phone book.

Mr RAU: Okay; no worries.

Mr PISONI: Mr Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed. This has been an orchestrated campaign from Labor Party factional heavies to stop me from speaking about what happens—

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Censorship. They know that I only have 20 minutes and, of course, that is their whole intention. They are embarrassed about what is being reported here. They are embarrassed about how their party runs, but that is how they have got their positions, through the Amway model of the ALP. That is what it is all about, and that is what these amendments to the Electoral Act are all about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:47): The only thing embarrassing there was the contribution of the member for Unley. I am a bit disturbed that the shadow minister for education thinks that people should take their responsibilities as voters to the point where he said to this house: if you would rather stay home and scratch your arse, that is Liberal Party policy. I think that is a disgraceful thing.

Mr Pisoni: I did not say that at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Now he says that he did not say that. Okay, I stand to be corrected. If the member for Unley did not say that the Liberal Party is happy for you to stay home and scratch your bum—I am stunned that he even has the audacity to deny it less than 20 minutes after he said it.

Mr Rau: It is on page 26 of their platform.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, page 26 of Liberal Party policy: stay home. The member for Unley said that when he brings schoolchildren on tours—and I stand by this, every time I bring a school group in here, I never preach party politics, because they are schoolchildren. The member for Unley is out there selling an ideology, a brand. This is the shadow spokesperson for education and he is bringing impressionable kids in and saying to them, 'The Labor Party is evil, they are a bunch of thugs, they do all these evil things. The only people with any morals and scruples in the parliament is us, the Liberal Party.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The spokesman for re-education.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The spokesman for re-education. For the life of me, I do not know anyone on that side, other than the member for Unley, who does not believe that we are all here for the betterment of South Australia. There is only one person in this place, out of all 47, who thinks that only half of the chamber are good guys. I can tell you that I know that members opposite might not agree with us on our policies, but what they do say is that we all have the best intentions at heart for South Australia.

The only one who says that we do not is the member for Unley because he is so steeped in ideology, filled with bile and anger for being kept out of the parliament for so long by the former member for Unley, Mark Brindal, that he has walked in here twisted and warped with his anger and rage. He is the only one who cannot rise above politics even for one second. He is so partisan. He cannot for one moment agree that we are all in here trying to do the right thing by South Australia.

I might not agree with the member for Schubert, but I know that his heart is in the right place. I might not agree with the member for Stuart, but I know that he has served this state with distinction and is owed a place of honour for the number of times that he has been returned to this house. I would never take that away from him.

However, the member for Unley does not care about any of that, he just attacks the man—plays the man, not the ball. Fair enough. That is who he is. Maybe that is the direction that his party is taking from now on. That is fine, but I think there are members of this house, on that side and this, who find everything that he said to be repulsive.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The factional system is repulsive. The hypocrisy of it all: the man who rose to his position by knocking off a sitting member, after branch stacking, and then says, 'I hate factional politics.'

Let us talk about corflutes, or election signs. Apparently there is a vast conspiracy by the Labor Party, a vast left wing conspiracy or right wing conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, to somehow fool the people of South Australia into: one, thinking that there is no election on by not putting election signs up; and, two, somehow entrenching incumbents.

I would have thought that incumbents had the advantage with election signs. If that is the case, why did Joan Hall lose her seat? Why did Joe Scalzi lose his seat? Wouldn't he have had more volunteers and more election signs against the competitor? Why would Chris Pyne have come so close to losing his seat? Why did Trish Worth lose her seat?

I know the member for Davenport is volunteering many reasons. The truth is this: as much as we want to believe how important we are on those election signs, those posters, the only people they make feel good are us. Our kids love them, and all my nephews and nieces love them. They say, 'There's Uncle Tom, there's Uncle Tom and there's Uncle Tom.'

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; Mark Brindal says hello, and he wants his mattress back. Apparently, the conspiracy is that if we ban election signs the Liberal Party is at a massive disadvantage. At the last election, when it had election signs, it was wiped out. At the last by-election, when it had more election signs than anyone else, it was wiped out.

An honourable member: You didn't even run.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We ran. I love this because the more they attack the result in Frome, the more they insult the people of Frome. They have chosen their member of parliament, much to the dislike of members opposite. They have chosen their member, and they like their member. They actually elected him twice: once as mayor and now as their local member of parliament—and you still cannot stand it. The only people not respecting the democratic process are members opposite.

The member for Unley thinks that his election signs are pivotal to his election campaign. I know that he has had many offers from men's magazines to be a pin-up boy and on the cover of fashion magazines. The mere sight of his face on those signs is somehow a call to arms to every Liberal voter in the seat of Unley. The truth is that they are only a substitute for hard work—and that is all they are. People hate them, traders hate them on main roads and voters hate them; they all hate them. Unfortunately, some members think that the more that go missing, the more women are stealing them and putting them up in their bedrooms. I can assure them that that is not what is happening.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, Isobel, I want them back!

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is right. The truth is that what we are trying to do by banning corflutes is to ban fast-food politics. We are bringing back good old-fashioned politics, where you get to meet your candidate. I will tell you how you unseat an incumbent member: rather than winning a dodgy preselection, why not go out and knock on doors? A cheap way and a faster way is to put up signs.

The truth is that politics has been taken over by fast-food politics—big election signs, glossy pamphlets you cannot afford and TV ads you cannot afford because you hate people donating to political parties. The important thing about getting rid of election signs is to bring back democracy, not somehow subvert it.

I can tell you that the member for Stuart does not win his election campaigns by putting up election signs. He wins them by knowing his constituents. I can assure you that the member for Davenport can win every election he runs in that seat without putting up one single election sign. Do you know why? I will tell you: because the people in his electorate know him because he works hard in the area.

The former mayor of Port Pirie could have won that election without having as many election signs as the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Why? His constituents knew him. His voters knew him. Election signs are a way of tricking MPs into thinking that they are working hard. The reason the member for Unley loves them so much is that, quite frankly, he is lazy. It is much easier to have 50 volunteers go out one night and put up 1,000 posters so that, all of a sudden, voters will think, 'Wow, that David Pisoni is everywhere.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: He's working hard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; he is working hard, but the truth is that they have never seen him. They go to the local community groups and they get his newsletters, but they never see him and have never heard of him. He may turn up at the local church for an hour at the end, but he never says hello to anyone, and then he leaves. He thinks that is campaigning.

The truth is that we are not trying to subvert democracy by banning election signs. We are trying to improve the amenity of beautiful suburbs such as Unley. Let us face it, they are better off without his face up, without the Labor candidate's face up and without those of the Greens' candidates, the Democrats and whoever else because they are beautiful streets.

If that is the only way you can campaign and the only method you know of campaigning—to have your face plastered up across an electorate—so be it, but you will not last in this game. People who have been around here for 20 or 30 years know that you do not win by putting your face on a Stobie pole; you win by the work you do and by the people you meet—

Mr Venning: And perceptions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and perceptions. I can tell you this: the member for Schubert is perceived one way by members of this house, although I am not one of them. I think he is a fantastic member of parliament and very different from the member his local constituents see all the time. They love him. If anyone disagrees with me, member for Unley, try to run someone against him and knock him off at preselection and see how they go. He has not done that by stacking. They know his work.

I know that you are planning in your little book to get rid of him one day, but you will not be able to get him to go, and you will not be able to knock him off because he is a good, hardworking member of parliament—unlike you, member for Unley, who uses filth and dirty personal attacks to get by because you have no ideas of your own.

Mrs REDMOND: On a point of order, I am sure that there is a standing order (although I cannot tell you the number) about casting aspersions on members of the house. I suspect that the minister's comments are an offence of that standing order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, under many circumstances there might be a need for intervention. However, the debate over the last half-hour has been extraordinarily robust. The member for Unley was present and has not taken any action.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 18:01 the house adjourned until Thursday 26 March 2009 at 10:30.


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