HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 March 2009. Page 2168.)

Clause 2.

Mrs REDMOND: Attorney, you may recall that on the last occasion (26 March), we went into committee somewhat unexpectedly. Your advisers were not here, so when I asked my first question about why the commencement clause was divided into two parts, you originally took that question on notice. First of all, could we clarify that aspect as to why the commencement clause is in two parts?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Clauses 9 to 14 are a package and they must not start at different times. They all pertain to registration and they must start together and, with experience of government, would come—

Mrs REDMOND: Which I do not have, Attorney. I had two hours.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, of course. I had forgotten that glorious two hours in here while the member for Heysen was on this side of the chamber, and she has been exiled to the other ever since. What was the date? March the—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have forgotten. March the something in 2002. Anyway, the member for Heysen would perhaps not be aware that different sections of acts that have received the royal assent can be proclaimed on different days. So, what we are saying by this provision is that clauses 9 to 14 inclusive all have to come in on the same day. Don't play around with clauses 9 to 14—they are a package.

Mrs REDMOND: As it happens, the member for Heysen is aware that different sections can commence on different days. Indeed, there are some sections of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act that are yet to be proclaimed to commence, like the one which provides that it can apply to self-employed persons. I am well aware of the fact that things can commence on different dates.

What puzzled me was that, normally, a bill simply provides that the act will commence on a date to be proclaimed. I understand the idea that you will take out clauses 9 to 14 and make sure that they are going to commence on a day. Is there an intention for those clauses to commence on a date which is different from the date of commencement of the rest of the bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Not really.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one further question on clause 2 relating to the second question that I asked on the previous occasion. I want to confirm, given the Attorney's comments on the previous occasion about the registration of the FREE Party, that the intention of the commencement provisions will be that the FREE Party, or any other party that chooses to form between now and whenever clauses 9 to 14 commence under proclamation, can operate in accordance with the current electoral provisions. That is, if you have 150 people, you can register a party; so, as at today, until we get this bill through and this is all registered, the intention will be that 150 members remain sufficient for people to register a party so that they can contest the next election. Is that correct?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mrs REDMOND: I want an explanation about the difference between the definition in the current act and the definition now proposed for a voting ticket square. Is there any difference in practical terms or is it just a matter of some sort of semantic tidying up of the provision, because I cannot see the essence of what the change to the definition of voting ticket square does?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think semantics is the answer. It is just the new provision allows flexibility about where the box is alongside the name of the candidate. Previously, the box was stipulated to be above the candidate's name.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mrs REDMOND: The first part of clause 5 simply allows for the provision of copies of the rolls in printed or electronic form, and I do not really have a question about that. The next part is the deletion of the requirement to make those available at the offices of returning officers, and I do not have a question about that. The next part, subclause (3), is about deleting existing subsection (2) and substituting new subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) currently states:

The Electoral Commissioner must make copies of the latest prints of the rolls available for purchase at prices determined by him or her—

Grammatically, it should only be 'him' since it involves the female, as well. That is as it currently stands. New subsection (2) says that the Electoral Commissioner has to make copies. The earlier amendment says that those copies can be printed or in electronic form, and the latest copies are available for purchase at prices determined by him or her. It does not stipulate in any way to whom—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I have the feeling that the Attorney is not listening to my question.

The CHAIR: He is slightly distracted.

Mrs REDMOND: Under the existing provision, the Electoral Commissioner does not seem to have any discretion. Anyone can walk in and ask for a copy of the electoral roll and obtain a copy. They have to be available for inspection without fee and available for purchase at a price determined by the commissioner. That is as it stands at the moment. We then broaden it under the first part so that it can be electronic or printed—it does not have to be in a printed form—and it is not available at the offices of the returning officers.

However, new subsection (2) states that the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide a member of the House of Assembly with an up-to-date copy—and I have already made a comment about this peculiar situation whereby those of us in this chamber can only get a copy of the electoral roll for our area, but those in the upper house can get a copy for the whole state because that is their electorate—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What would I do to you if I had the electronic roll for Heysen?

Mrs REDMOND: That relates to my question, Attorney. The first part of the question is this: is it the case that, whereas under current section 26 anyone can get a copy of the roll, under new section 26 it will be restricted to members of the House of Assembly, members of the Legislative Council or the registered officer of a registered political party; and is it the intention then that members of the public, at least under section 26, will not be able to apply for a copy of the roll?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Mrs REDMOND: Will the Attorney expand upon the reasoning? That is quite a dramatic change from a situation where any person can go to the Electoral Commission and say, 'I want to see a copy of the roll for this district.' I know, for instance, that a lot of process servers access copies of the roll so that they can find the people on whom they want to serve process. This seems to then say that will not happen any more. Is that the intention?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Process servers and people who have a commercial reason for access to the electoral roll can inspect the roll. What they cannot do is carry away a copy of it, put it on computer and use it for marketing and other purposes of which I would hope the house does not approve.

Mr VENNING: They have access to the electoral roll via the State Library, but, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing stopping people from taking a photograph of it or, indeed, just writing down in longhand the information they want. Is that the case?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Schubert is correct.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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