HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 April 2009. Page 2447.)

Clause 5.

Mrs REDMOND: I believe that we had got to the point of clarifying what the actual effect of clause 5 was. If I can just remind the committee of where we were at. My understanding is that at present any person can go to the Electoral Office, examine the record and get a copy of the record, if they pay for it. If you are a member of parliament you can get a copy of your electoral list without paying for it. Indeed, if you are a registered political party you can get a copy of the list without paying for it.

The proposal in clause 5 is to restrict that access so that, whilst any member of the public can still go and examine the record, they will no longer be able to obtain a copy of the electoral roll, even if they are prepared to pay for it, but members of parliament will, nevertheless, be able to get a copy of the electoral roll for their district, and if you are a registered political party you will be able to get a copy of the electoral roll for that district, which is, in effect, for the upper house, the registered political party, the whole state.

The government says that the basic reason behind this narrowing of people's rights is to prevent marketing companies from accessing the electoral roll information and using it for marketing purposes. Personally, I do not have a great difficulty with the idea that marketing companies might access that information.

We are yet to debate the issue of putting ages specifically in there, but part of the information, for instance, on the electoral roll is that an age band of the person registered to vote is indicated and, no doubt, marketing companies, when they get copies of the electoral roll, use those age bands to identify groups of people to whom they might direct their particular marketing.

So, that is the evil that the amendment seeks to overcome, that marketing companies might get this. As against that, of course, is the fact that what it does is it restricts the freedom of individuals and, in particular, it restricts the freedom of individuals who might, for instance, be contemplating running for parliament but who are not members of a registered political party and who then cannot get access to the electoral roll.

That seems to be somewhat prejudicial to people who might find themselves in that position. Furthermore, it does seem a little odd that what we are in fact creating is a law that says, 'Well, you can have the information, we are just going to make you get it the long way,' because it is still going to be all right for you to go to the electoral office and one-by-one take a note of every person.

So, the information is available. It is not that you cannot have the information. We are just going to make you get it the long way. That seems, to me, a little perverse in an age when we are so much driven by technology and making things accessible and easy. It just seems a little odd that we would say, 'Well, there's nothing against you having the information, you can go and check on anybody's enrolment and get their details, you just can't get it printed out and handed to you as a copy.'

I see the Attorney nodding, and I guess at least I have put on the record correctly what the change is that is occurring here. We had not considered this issue in detail and we had not fully understood the implications until we got the debate on the record during the committee stage. I indicate that, at this stage at least, the Liberal opposition intends to support a motion, if there is one, to defeat this clause. It seems perverse to say that people can have the information; they just cannot have it the quick, easy way. It also seems a little odd to say, basically, 'As members of parliament, we are in this privileged position. We get something different from everyone else. Not only can we still get the information, we get it free, but everyone else can have their rights taken away.'

I indicate that on behalf of the Liberal opposition as a preliminary matter. At this stage, provided the Attorney can indicate to me that my understanding of the effect of the clause is correct, I do not have any further questions on it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: For about 25 years, candidates for public office have found it an effective way to communicate with their constituents or their potential constituents to send them direct mail; that is to say, letters that are personally addressed. It seems that, if an elector sees his or her name on the envelope, he or she is more likely to read it than if it is unaddressed. I do not think any member of the house would dissent from that proposition. I invite them to do so. I think all of us have had the experience where a small number of constituents who, having received a direct mail letter, contact our office and say, 'How did you get my name and address?' It happens, and I think it happens to all of us. Certainly, from time to time (it involves a very small number of people), it happens to me, and I send out a lot of personally addressed material.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In 42 languages other than English. I am quite sure that the vast majority of South Australians are sufficiently privacy minded that, if asked whether any member of the public should be able to go to the Electoral Commission and obtain the most recent snapshot of the electoral roll for South Australia or one or more state districts, they would say, 'No, that material should not be freely available.' Indeed, many of them may deny it to sitting members of parliament if they are asked. I am quite sure that, overwhelmingly, they would say that, just because a person thinks he or she might run for parliament at the next general election, he or she should not be entitled to get a copy of the electoral roll for South Australia or for one or more state districts.

What we have tried to do in this provision is to restrict the entitlement to the registered officer of registered political parties—and even that may be too broad, when you consider that the Gypsy Jokers motorcycle gang has now set up a political party and it is on the way to registration (if it is not registered already)—that we will give members of the upper house the electronic electoral roll for the entire state and that we will give members, for their own state district, the electronic roll.

The member for Heysen appeared to be arguing that members of the public should be allowed to walk in off Light Square, catch the lift up to the Electoral Commission and say, 'I would like the electronic disk with the electronic electoral roll for the state of South Australia.' That is a recipe for abuse of the electoral roll, and that is why the government is trying to prevent commercial or improper use of the electoral roll. We are trying to restrict it to persons who are properly interested in the roll and will use it for proper purposes.

I say that direct mail letters from a sitting member or a candidate are a legitimate use of the roll. Many South Australians would disagree, but I am of the view that it is a legitimate use of the roll, and I would hope that all members here agree with me. Perhaps they do not. The government is trying to place proper privacy restrictions on the use of this very powerful tool, because if any individual could apply to receive the accumulated monthly roll for the entire state of South Australia each month—

Mrs Redmond: As long as they pay for it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And pay for it—the member for Heysen seems to think that paying for it expiates the improper use of it. Not on your nelly it doesn't. To be able to do that is to have a tremendous commercial advantage over your competitors. If any member of the South Australian public could walk into the Electoral Commission and buy that information, there would be a queue snaking right around Light Square and down Currie Street.

We are trying to put a stop to the commercial exploitation of the electoral roll. Indeed, if the situation that the member for Unley and the member for Heysen want—namely, that businesses can buy the entire electoral roll electronically—were to obtain, then the people of South Australia would not want to be on the electoral roll. In fact, we would have a queue of people seeking to suppress their address on the electoral roll because they do not want to get one personally addressed letter after another from their local Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen is kind enough to say that my constituents get a lot of personally addressed mail from me—and she is right, they do. They get a lot more from me than the constituents of Heysen get from her—and I think that is well-known—and, in the electorate of Croydon, in 42 languages other than English.

Mr Pisoni: Gibberish.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Unley, let the record show, has just referred to languages other than English as gibberish. We know that the member for Unley had to be removed—

Mr PISONI: Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Point of order, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIR: It is usual practice that personal explanations are made when there is no matter before the chair.

Mr PISONI: So perhaps I will do one shortly, thank you.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Unley may speak only English and take pride in that. I am in the same boat as the member for Unley, but I do not take pride in it.

Mr Pisoni: You have no pride.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Chair, pride—

Mrs Redmond: Goeth before a fall.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, indeed, and the Bible, which I know is not the member for Unley's favourite document, teaches us that pride is nearly always a vice. If the member for Unley says that I have no pride, then I accept his accolade.

We will shortly hear from the member for Mount Gambier, who will be the champion of candidates who are running as Independents for the first time, and he says that they should be allowed access to the electronic electoral roll. Does he say for the entire state so they can decide which seat they are going to run in or just for the seat they are running in? I await his suggestion. What the government is trying to do is nothing more than prevent the commercial exploitation of the electoral roll and prevent—

Mrs Redmond: Why?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Why? I have already explained why. If the member for Heysen and the member for Unley get their way, the citizens of South Australia will be subjected to a torrent of commercial direct mail such that none of them will want to be on the electoral roll. We are trying—

Mrs Redmond: It's happening now.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Because they don't get it in electronic form. So, we are trying—

Mr Pederick: They want to get rid of the crap that comes from Labor.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is a very intelligent interjection from the member for Hammond. Apparently citizens of South Australia do not want Labor direct mail but they do want Liberal direct mail.

Mr Pederick: Absolutely.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 'Absolutely,' he says.

Mr Goldsworthy: Never a truer word has been spoken.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: So this is the kind of intelligent commentary we get after lunch, the sort of post-prandial musings of the Liberal opposition. It reminds me of the last post-prandial musings of a Liberal member, Senator Alan Ferguson, on 18 March in the Senate.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order, that being the matter of relevance to the debate. The Attorney has been going on at some length, but he has now changed topic completely.

The CHAIR: Attorney, I would ask you to address the subject of the bill.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I accept the member for Heysen's censure.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: That verbose attempt to defend the indefensible will not satisfy any reasonable scrutiny. In the form of a question, I ask the minister whether or not, as an unintended consequence of his wish to deny some people access to the roll for marketing purposes, he is denying the democratic right of a group of people who may choose to seek election to this office and that, as a consequence of that, would be disadvantaged in attempting to be elected.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the member for Mount Gambier makes a fair point and it is possible that between the houses we could come up with a compromise whereby a South Australian who as a matter of certainty is running for parliament—namely, has nominated for parliament—could have access to the roll. However, what we cannot allow is anyone to walk in off the street and claim the electronic electoral roll for the entire state of South Australia on the claim that they may or may not be running for the Legislative Council at the next quadrennial poll, because, in that case, every marketing official of commercial enterprises in South Australia will be tempted to make that claim.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I put it to the minister, then, that a more appropriate way to have him focus on the fact that this amendment is flawed to the extent that an unintended consequence is to deny people—other than those elected—means to seek election, we might not strike out this amendment at this time, allowing him to attempt to frame another amendment that more fairly provides the protection he believes that electors, voters, need from unscrupulous marketing, and at the same time not disadvantage those who seek this office and not choose to use a political party as a forum to achieve that objective.

Mr PISONI: I have some points of clarification. With respect to this clause which provides that members of the Legislative Council can have access to an up-to-date copy of the roll, that members of the House of Assembly can have one that relates to their seat, and, of course, that the registered office of a registered political party can also have an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll, are any provisions in place to prevent them then on-selling or giving others access to that roll?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think that the member for Unley raises a good point. We have a provision to that effect in the Local Government Act, and I think it would be appropriate to include that in the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. As the question was his idea, I invite the member for Unley to move an amendment to that effect; or, alternatively, I indicate that the government will accept such an amendment.

Mr PISONI: I will consult with the shadow attorney-general. It is perhaps something we can do in the other place. I have another question in regard to the use of this in any intended amendment. Where does Labor's Progressive Business, for example, sit in the definition? Would it have access to an electoral roll under this clause as we see it now, as well as Hawker Britton which acts for the Labor Party and which invented the Labor formula for campaigns and election success, which includes things such as grabbing hold of anyone who has celebrity and trying to get associated with them? I think that is one of the pieces of the formula. I think another one is 'tough on law and order'. Another one is to single out people you can blame for what is happening in the world as long as it is something you cannot fix yourself but you can blame other people for. Am I getting there?

That is the Hawker Britton formula. I think it is. I think we are getting there. We have no better master in the Rann government of following the formula. You can see the book they bring out for their election campaigns. I am not sure of the details about publicly-funded political messages. I am not quite sure where that fits in. I am sure it is in there somewhere because, certainly, we are seeing a lot of that done by the Rann government.

Would the provision as it stands now mean that if the marketing arm, the fundraising arm of the Labor Party, Progressive Business, looks at, for example, the social pages and sees that someone is associated with some new company in town, or they read the business pages and sees that someone has moved into town or started a new business, or, for example, that someone won X-Lotto, could it then get access to the electoral roll under the pretext that it is on behalf of the Labor Party and write to that person and invite them to pay $5,000 to meet the Premier? Is that a legitimate use of this clause as you intended, Attorney?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It was hard to work out the relevance of any of that to the bill, but the member for Unley—who for his performance yesterday shall henceforth be known as Mr Criminon—will no doubt know the answer to his questions. They are, of course, rhetorical. Of course, only those registered political parties and members of parliament will have access to the electronic form of the roll—and in the case of members for state districts for their state district only. It will not extend to affiliates or related organisations. I presume that the question was asked only so the member for Unley, Mr Criminon, could load up his five-minute contribution with a series of churlish smears against the governing party.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I probably should put on the record at this time something that I wished to do during the second reading, but there were some misunderstandings about bringing the second reading on this bill to a close. I did need to make a point at that time that I had exercised my right while a cabinet minister to exclude myself from cabinet and any discussion on this bill so that I would be in a place to argue against and, if necessary, vote against some or all of the bill in this house.

I wish to appeal to the house to, at least at this stage, allow the original bill to stand until such time as some due diligence can be applied to this amendment, because I believe that the minister himself has admitted that it is flawed to the extent now that, though it might only be a few, it denies some a right. It diminishes some at the expense of others in terms of seeking material to assist in election. It goes further and extinguishes an existing right for some at the expense of others. Having admitted that it has a flaw to that extent, I would simply say: let the original clause stand until such time as we can all have an opportunity, in a considered way, to view another amendment which achieves what the Attorney wishes to his satisfaction but is not flawed to the extent that he, I and the lead spokesperson for the opposition have identified in this house.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: As I read it, this is a 45 clause bill with a schedule or two so, if we just move on from this clause to others, then the time will be permitted to come back with an appropriate amendment. Moreover, this bill is scheduled for debate tomorrow, so there is plenty of time to formulate the amendment.

Mr HANNA: One of the grievances that I have in my current role is that the electoral boundaries commission a couple of years ago declared new boundaries for Mitchell, as with many other electorates. Something like one-third of my electorate has changed, and that is fine—it is a fair and open process and that is just the luck of the draw, in a sense. However, the problem is that for what I call the new part of my electorate—that which at the time of voting at the next election will be in the Mitchell electorate—I cannot have access to the electoral roll for that new area. My Liberal and Labor opponents can, by virtue of the current law and by virtue of the clause as the Attorney-General proposes to amend it.

The law, quite rightly, states that elected members may have access to the electoral roll for their district, but it takes no account whatsoever of the declared new boundaries which come out about a year after each general election. If it was a level playing field, I would have less grievance, but the fact is that upper house members obviously have access to the whole of the state roll and, therefore, the Labor or Liberal candidate can go to their party colleagues and say, 'Can you please give me the roll for Reynella?'

However, even if that was improper in some way because, perhaps, upper house members should not be doing that, the fact, as it turns out, is that the member for Reynell has a roll for her current boundaries, which will not be part of her new boundaries (or the future member for Reynell's new boundaries), and therefore, whichever party that person is from (the person who is currently the holder of those new boundaries, from my perspective), that person will obviously provide access to others in their party, namely, the Labor candidate in this instance.

That is one of the things that I think needs to be addressed. I was considering an amendment to this very clause but, because I ended up thinking that the whole clause probably should be thrown out, I have not done that. However, it is something that needs to be addressed at some stage.

I do not know whether the Attorney can shed any light on the history of this, but I looked into it with the Electoral Commissioner—I cannot remember whether it was the current or previous Electoral Commissioner—and I was advised that it was through a cabinet decision that transfer of the electoral database information would not go to current members until about six months before the future general election.

So it is not in the legislation and it is not in regulations; it is just a practice that has built up. There is no bit of paper that the Electoral Commissioner could provide me with—no minute or letter—that establishes this. So, first, can the Attorney explain how this came to be and, secondly, whether he thinks there is any justification for it?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the member for Mitchell makes an excellent point. I am advised by the Deputy Electoral Commissioner that it is the practice to give the electronic electoral roll, and accumulated monthly roll changes, to the member for his or her new seat within six months of the general election. I think it would be appropriate to put in the legislation that a sitting member whose state district is changed by the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission should, from that change, have access to the electronic roll, and accumulated monthly updates, for each state district into which parts of his or her current electorate are thrust by the redistribution.

Mr Hanna: Why didn't you put that in?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We didn't think of it. This is why the committee stage of the House of Assembly here in South Australia is outstanding compared to the federal parliament. I think the bill will be much improved by the suggestions of the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Mitchell.

Mrs Redmond: And don't forget the member for Unley.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the member for Unley. I am sorry, I should have remembered the member for Unley, whose amendment I have cheerfully accepted. So, I think now it is just a choice. The member for Mitchell can either draft that himself or leave it to the government to draft and it will get on to it. As I said, it is a 45 clause bill and there are hours to go in this debate; let us fix up this clause in accordance with the collective will of the committee.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We hear a lot about evidence-based policy making. Where is the evidence that this amendment is good policy? Where are the queues, the line-ups of people wanting to get copies of the electoral roll now? Where are these thousands of businesses that, mysteriously, want to use the electoral roll? They are not there. I do not believe that whether the electoral roll is available in an electronic form or a hard copy will make any difference at all. Anyone who gets unsolicited mail should do as I do—that is, put 'return to sender' on it and send it back. In my seven years in this place I have had only one complaint about receiving an unsolicited letter from my office. They wanted to know how we got their name and address, and, when it was explained that it was on the electoral roll, they accepted that and were more than happy to receive further information from my office. I do not think the evidence exists for this amendment, but I look forward to seeing further amendments to this clause.

I was interested to hear what the member for Mitchell said about the availability of adjoining electoral rolls, because in my case I have lost some of my electorate to the member for Bright's electorate. Some of my best booths have gone down there (I know that she does not want them, and I would like them back!) and I have picked up some of the member for Elder's electorate in Morphettville, and I think that is terrific—there is the Morphettville Park footy club, the Kangaroos, which is a terrific club. Its members are looking forward to getting some new lights for their oval. Of course, there is also the Morphettville racecourse, and I have a background there. If we are making changes so that I am able to have copies of the electoral roll for the new parts of my electorate as of the redistribution, I would like to know if I can then write to those new electors using my global allowance.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I will answer the last question first. Of course you can write to those new electors using your global allowance.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I doubt it very much. As the member for Croydon, I send letters all over the state, as the member for Unley well knows. I also have an army of letter-boxers who are willing to walk the streets of other electorates to get my message out. The member for Morphett has to bear in mind the current situation. I do not blame him if he is not familiar with it, so let me explain. If you own a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Glenelg (let us say) and you want to direct mail people within the catchment of your business with personally addressed letters extolling the virtues of KFC, the only way you can do that is to go along and buy a printed copy of the electoral roll for the state district of Morphett at the time of the last general election. That is as good as it gets.

Alternatively (and I think I am right here), you could buy a copy of the paper electoral roll for the federal division of Hindmarsh as at the last federal election. You can then sit down in front of your computer—and yes, the member for Morphett affects to be typing—and enter the names and addresses into your computer in the hope that they will come out in the form you want them; namely, street order and then numerical order within the street. You will then either post them or walk them in.

What you will not get, as the franchisee of Kentucky Fried Chicken at Glenelg, is a disk or an electronic copy of the state district of Morphett at the last general election; still less will you get what you really want, which is the accumulated monthly roll for the state district of Morphett and, therefore, a snapshot month by month of the state district of Morphett. Let us face it, the last general election was in March 2006, and if you are the proprietor of Kentucky Fried Chicken Glenelg that snapshot of the electoral roll is not much use to you, because there is something like a 30 per cent to 35 per cent turnover in each electorate between elections. People die, people move, people come on the electoral roll for the first time because they are Australian citizens or they have turned 18.

It is important to note that it is only an entitlement to a quadrennial snapshot of the paper roll that is available now. If the Liberal Party is arguing that we should go further than that, and that we should sell the accumulated monthly roll in disk form to anyone who asks for it, then I respectfully disagree with Liberal Party.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that there is provision, under standing order 254, for consideration of this clause to be postponed. I suggest that motion include that it be postponed and resumed on motion. Are we at a stage where the issues have been canvassed so that people can go away and come up with answers?

Mrs REDMOND: I think I am in that position, but for one matter I would like to confirm regarding the response given by the Attorney to a question from the member for Morphett. The question is this: can the Attorney just confirm for me what I think he said in response to the member for Morphett's question, that he regularly uses his global allowance to send mail to people outside of his electorate and that in his view this is not only allowable but appropriate?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The question is simply not relevant to the bill.

Mr PISONI: Attorney-General, can you clarify for me what access people have to the federal roll at the moment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am not responsible for that.

Mr PISONI: Well, this is very relevant. You have been standing there berating the parliament about the virtues of restricting access to the roll because it will save everybody from junk mail. It is very relevant for me to ask this question: whether this clause will, in actual fact, address that problem. I think it would be misleading of you to make that claim in this parliament if we find out that the federal roll is available in the same manner that you are telling us the state roll should not be available in order to protect people from junk mail.

My understanding is that people simultaneously elect to join the state roll when they join the federal roll, and there is a compulsion to join the federal roll. Some people choose not to join the state roll, because they obviously have some objection to compulsory voting and compulsory enrolment. They understand that they must join the federal roll, however, they do not have an obligation, as the legislation stands at the moment, to join the state roll. But I understand that you are attempting to address this in this particular bill.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right.

Mr PISONI: So, my question is very relevant to the statements, at the very least, that you have made in support of locking up access to the electoral roll. I think it would be very misleading of you to suggest to this house that we lock up the state electoral roll and then we find out that the federal electoral roll is accessible to everybody who wishes to have it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Whether or not the member's question is relevant is a question that listeners and readers will determine. Despite the member for Unley urging us to treat his question as highly relevant, it is a matter for others to judge. I have taken the advice of the Deputy Commissioner, and I am told that the commonwealth no longer prints electoral rolls, that they are all in electronic form and that only registered parties and members of parliament have access to those rolls.

The CHAIR: Attorney, would you care to move that, under the provisions of standing order 254, consideration of clause 5 be postponed and resumed on motion.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I so move.

Motion carried; consideration of clause 5 postponed.

Clause 6.

Mrs REDMOND: Clause 6 amends the existing section 27 of the legislation. I seem to recall during the information session which the Electoral Commissioner provided for us through the good officers of the Attorney that the primary focus of this section is, indeed, to enable the Electoral Commissioner to obtain information, particularly about students in high school and TAFE who may be approaching their 17th birthdays so that the Electoral Commissioner can write to them and either encourage—as is the case under the present legislation—or indicate the requirement, should the amendments go through, for those people to be enrolled. So, I understand that, and I do not have any issue with the intention of that but, as usual, I look at in what ways this could be abused and in what ways could it extend further than perhaps is the intention.

I want to first ask about the change in the wording. In paragraph (a) of existing section 27(1), it refers to the Electoral Commissioner being able to require in writing 'any officer in the Public Service of the state'. What it will now say is:

An agency or instrumentality of the crown or any other prescribed authority or any public sector employee.

I wonder whether the Attorney could detail just what that change means in practice. Who are the extra people who are going to be covered by that and who are the likely prescribed authorities?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The expansion is to rope in the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

Mrs REDMOND: If they are the only ones to be included, why would it not be more sensible to simply specify those organisations? I appreciate that, from time to time, organisations go through name changes, but I do not see that as an insurmountable obstacle in that there can easily be a drafting provision to say, 'the South Australian Certificate of Education—or whatever organisation may in due course subsume or replace it', or whatever. It seems to me to have broadened in quite a significant way the scope of the Electoral Commissioner's ability to require information to be handed over.

I do not wish to suggest that the Electoral Commissioner would ask for any inappropriate information, but I am just curious as to why, if it is so specific, we are only going to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. People who change their address because they lease a house are often surprised to find that the Electoral Commissioner is on to them. Why would we not have the legislation drafted to make it clear that we are aiming it at the youngsters coming up to the age of 17 or 18, instead of saying that the electoral commissioner can just go anywhere and require anyone she chooses to provide information?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Debate on this bill will show that the state parliament comprises 69 world experts on electoral law. As soon as an electoral bill comes into this house, there are hours, days and weeks of fun and amusement ahead. In fact, I have been trying to get this bill into the house for seven years. The idea that the electoral bill has to be brought back to the House of Assembly, the other place and His Excellency the Governor every time we want to add or subtract a government department or agency is a nonsense, and you could only think it if your entire political life had been spent in opposition bar two hours on the government benches.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Or that, as the member for Heysen so correctly interjects. One only has to state it to know why we are doing it this way.

Mrs REDMOND: Moving on to the next part, I was then puzzled as to the rewording of section 27(1)(a), which is the bit we have just been talking about. Then there is the new section 27(1a), which provides that the regulations may provide that 27(1)(a)—which is the subsection we have just been talking about—does not apply to:

(a) a particular agency or instrumentality of the Crown, prescribed authority, or public sector employee; or

(b) specified information or material in the possession or control of an agency, instrumentality, authority, body or person.

I was wondering who you had in mind, having said that it is going to be broadened so that she can ask for the information from all these people, but it is not going to apply from these prescribed people. Who are the prescribed people intended to be?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It would be a fine state of affairs if the State Electoral Commissioner got curious about where someone was living and whether or not they are on the electoral roll and communicated with the police commissioner and said, 'Commissioner, where do your boys think Criminon is living these days?' Obviously, some agencies should be exempt.

An honourable member: Have you moved to North Adelaide yet?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: By the way, I have never lived in North Adelaide. I do not live in North Adelaide now. I am not living in North Adelaide in the future. It is just another Hendrick Gout lie. He made it up. He had no substratum of fact; he invented it. Do you know why he invented it? Because of the conflict I have had over Barton Road, North Adelaide.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Kavel picks it immediately. The lie was made up by Hendrick Gout because he wanted to place me in North Adelaide to give the impression that I had betrayed my constituents by moving up the hill. It is a lie.

Mr Pisoni: He's an itinerant voter.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I will pay that one from the member for Unley; that is good. Alas, we have not brought in the bill yet, so I cannot be an itinerant voter. However, I am sure Mr Hendrick Gout will keep working on where I live until he can communicate with the outlaw motorcycle gangs and tell them exactly what my street address is so that he can put me, my family and the people I live with at risk. No doubt, he will continue to do that.

An honourable member: He rides a motorbike, doesn't he?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, he was in court recently on breaches of the law on his motorbike. He was in the Magistrates Court, but that did not get reported. Some government agencies hold information which should not be available to the Electoral Commission. Government agencies such as South Australia Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, amongst others, are not there to help update the electoral roll. They hold confidential information which has been gathered for one purpose and should not be used for another.

The government takes the view that SACE, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and other government departments are agencies that should cooperate in the update of the electoral roll. I think we can see sense, for instance, in SACE, which has a very good database of 16 and 17 year olds, sharing that information to fulfil the South Australian Strategic Plan purpose of getting the maximum number of 17 year olds provisionally enrolled and the maximum number of 18, 19 and 20 year olds on the electoral roll. I think we are running at something like 75 per cent which is above the national average. It is pretty good, but we could do better, and this is part of—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I did not say that. It is obvious that those agencies can help; they would be useful agencies and they can help appropriately. That the police happen to know where someone lives is not an appropriate mechanism for bringing them on the electoral roll, ditto with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Members can probably think of other agencies that hold names and addresses of citizens but could not appropriately share them with the Electoral Commission.

Mrs REDMOND: I do not have any contest with anything that the Attorney has just said, but I am then curious because—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What about Hendrik Gout?

Mrs REDMOND: I could ask the Attorney about Hendrik Gout and, more importantly, about Barton Road, because my recollection is that the Attorney, on more than one occasion when in opposition, promised that the very first thing he would do when he came to government would be to open Barton Road. My understanding is that it is still closed, and is likely to remain so.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Because that is Liberal Party policy.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney-General is in government and he promised that as soon as he was in government that was what he was going to do. As I said, I do not have any issue with the concept that it is inappropriate for the police, the DPP or any number of other people to be giving information to the Electoral Commissioner and that it is inappropriate for the Electoral Commissioner to be asking for that information. However, what I want to know is, has there been any case where the Electoral Commissioner has even asked for that information, because clearly it is not in the current legislation and I am puzzled as to why the necessity to then put it into the new legislation?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I don't follow the question.

Mrs REDMOND: You have said that it is inappropriate for the DPP, the police, and so on, to hand over that information, and I agree.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We do it by regulation.

Mrs REDMOND: The question is: why are we putting it into the legislation now? If there is no problem, why is it going into the legislation? I take it from the Attorney-General's interjection that perhaps the answer is that currently it is in the regulation and it has been moved up to the status of part of the bill.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: State government agencies are exempted by regulation, so the bill is making provision for agencies to be exempted by regulation from the requirement to provide names and addresses of citizens to the Electoral Commissioner.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mrs REDMOND: I am curious about the motivation behind the change from the current requirement of the act, which is for the electoral information to include the age band within which the elector's age falls, and the new requirement to actually put the elector's date of birth. Apart from the fact that there may occasionally be men who want to hide their age, or something like that, I am puzzled as to why we want to change that. Given the Attorney's emphasis on the need for privacy and so on, it would have seemed to me that if you want to protect someone's privacy, requiring them to put not just the age band into which they fall but their date of birth is diminishing their right to privacy.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This is an argument which was had when the Electoral Bill was last before the parliament in 2001. Indeed, my recollection is that that bill came down from the Legislative Council just before parliament prorogued for the 2002 election. The Liberal Party was in office. The bill was in the hands of the Hon. K.T. Griffin, the attorney-general of blessed memory, and after it had been hammered out through the other place it was on the verge of going through here when the then deputy premier, Dean Brown, adjourned the house and therefore prorogued it, with the loss of the bill.

Much of that bill, which the Parliamentary Liberal Party endorsed—indeed, it was the Liberal government's bill—is now before the house again, seven years later, but this time, having settled into the deck chairs of opposition, the Liberal Party is against it and, as I understand it, has voted against the second reading and will vote against the third reading. Go figure.

Mrs Redmond: New Liberal Party.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: A new Liberal Party. A new improved Liberal Party.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, Country Labor were the victors of Frome. Recall?

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I seem to recall that it was Country Labor's preferences that gave us the pleasant, splendid member we have for Frome, instead of Terry Boylan. But if the member for Hammond wants to keep interjecting about Country Labor and Frome, you go right ahead, you be my guest. I had a lovely day at Riverton. A lovely day out.

The Hon. K.T. Griffin took the view that he wanted to change the Electoral Act to give people—maybe he did not want to change it, but certainly his belief was that age bands were the better way to go and that date of birth was an invasion of privacy. So, he put the boundaries there and said that you could know whether a person was in his 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s, and so on, but you were not allowed to know what their date of birth was.

That was a matter of disagreement within the Parliamentary Liberal Party. For instance, some Liberal members of the federal parliament, when date of birth was available (and I think it may still be at federal level), were sending out birthday cards to constituents.

Mrs Redmond: And some Labor members.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And some Labor members may have been doing it too. I recall Chris Gallus sending out Name Day cards—although I do not suppose you need date of birth for that. The member for Davenport (and we know the Evans family are great sponsors of the member for Heysen) took the view that date of birth should be available. That was his view, and I think we were going to amend the electoral bill in 2001 in the lower house, if it had not already been amended in the upper house, to include date of birth.

So, people of goodwill disagree about what precisely should be on the electoral roll. My understanding (I could be wrong) is that date of birth has always been available on the federal roll, and by this bill we will make it available on the state roll. What I do know is that, even if the member for Heysen says that this is an unacceptable invasion of privacy, she and her colleagues will use that information to communicate more effectively with their constituents.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney presumes too much. I was not making a comment one way or the other. I was just curious as to what motivated the proposed change. I am a little puzzled, because I am quite sure that, although the current legislation talks about an age band, the information that I see about my electors I am sure has their age. It does not have their date of birth or an age band; it has their age.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That would be because you are making unauthorised use of the federal division of Mayo.

Mrs REDMOND: No. I am only dealing with the stuff I have no access to. I have not sought any access to federal things, but I know that what I have on the information is an age.

I want to confirm two other things on this clause. The first is that subclause (3) remains unaltered. Subclause (2) provides that on an application the Electoral Commissioner can provide a person with information about an elector, and that information is the elector's sex—personally, in that circumstance I prefer the word 'gender'—the elector's place of birth and the age band—or, if it is changed under this provision, the date of birth. Subsection (3) provides, 'However, information is not to be disclosed to a person of a prescribed class'—who is the applicant—'if the elector has requested the electoral commissioner in writing not to do so.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We are removing that.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. What I want to know (and I expect that we will have to ask a representative of the state electoral office) is to what extent is that utilised? Do we have many people who apply to have that information suppressed from publication, and how many, what percentage? What information do we have about that?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have sought the advice of the deputy commissioner and he said that, of those people who have enrolled to vote or changed their enrolment since this Trevor Griffin provision came in about being able to opt out of telling your MP your country of birth or your sex, something like 50 per cent of people have availed themselves of that exemption and said they do not want to share that information with their member of parliament. So, what has happened since this Trevor Griffin provision came in is that, progressively, the roles have become less and less useful to sitting members because, increasingly, we do not know the country of origin of our constituents and, increasingly—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Precisely. The member for Heysen has got it. So, if you are putting out material in 42 languages—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —42 plus English—it is very handy to know what the country of birth is. But of course that is not determinative—

Mrs Redmond: Of their language.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —of their language, because, for instance, people may say that they were born in the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina but—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, it has always thrown me, too; they pronounce it both ways there.

Mr Williams: You just made that up.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I have been to Bosnia. I have been to Sarajevo, Bratunac, Srebrenica, Potacari, Banja Luka, Mostar, Blagaj and Medjugorje. I have been all over Bosnia. So, if one is listed as being born in Bosnia-Herzegovina one may not speak the Bosniak language, one may speak Serbian; or if one is from Prnjavor, one may speak Ukrainian. So, it is not determinative.

Mrs Redmond: Latvian.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, not Latvian. Latvia was not within the Austrian empire, and therefore Latvians were not resettled in the Prnjavor area. But that is another story.

The question is thornier than I thought, and it is very much to the credit of the member for Heysen that she has picked up this point. It is certainly my intention—and I am sure the member for Davenport shares my intention on this—to make that information available to members of parliament, and if we have not achieved that by the provision here, then we shall attempt to do so before the bill goes much further.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Eight years and you've stuffed it up.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you very much for that endorsement.

Mr Hanna: It has been in a bipartisan way.

Mrs Redmond: That's right; it has been in a bipartisan and loving way.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, in a bipartisan and loving way. I shall do everything in my power to bring about the member for Davenport's will on this matter.

Mrs REDMOND: The penalty is subject to a dramatic increase from $1,250 to $10,000. The penalty appears to apply only for this: that the Electoral Commissioner may provide information under this section subject to conditions notified in writing to the authority or person to whom the information is given. As I read the section, there is no penalty on the Electoral Commissioner, for instance, if someone had notified under a previous subsection that they did not want certain information disclosed and there was some clerical stuff-up and the information was disclosed. There is no penalty against the Electoral Commissioner for doing that, but if the Electoral Commissioner provides information under section 27A and provides it subject to conditions notified in writing, then it is subject to a penalty and that penalty is being massively increased from $1,250 to $10,000. Why is there such a massive penalty and what sorts of conditions does the Electoral Commissioner put on the release of information?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Under this provision, the information would be supplied to people entitled to have it and, in the main, that will be members of parliament. If the member of parliament then misuses the information, he should be subjected to a substantial penalty. We think $1,250 is hardly a very strong deterrent to a member of parliament misusing this information and we think a maximum penalty of $10,000 hits the hip pocket harder and therefore is more likely to deter the misuse of this information.

Let me give the committee an example. Let us say you are provided with information that hundreds of people in your electorate are born in Vietnam and you then, as a favour to a mate, send them out a circular saying, 'You ought to shop at the Saigon Grocery on Hanson Road', then you are misusing that information. I think a heavier penalty is in order, given the way this could be misused, for instance, for commercial purposes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Given the Attorney's contribution, why would the Attorney not make the penalty $10,000 above any commercial benefit gained, because, for instance, one could go to Woolworths in Croydon and say to them—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Or Blackwood.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Or Blackwood. I like to support the local Drake Foodland as best I can, or the IGA, the smaller end of town. I am not an elite shopper like the Attorney, supporting the big end of town. For instance, you could go to Woolworths in Croydon and say, 'Look, the penalty is only $10,000', so as long as you cover the penalty and contribute a bit more, then the matter can be abused. Why would the penalty not be $10,000 plus any benefit gained?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: First of all, there is not a Woolworths in Croydon.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: What have you been doing for 18 years—not getting decent shopping!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Croydon, I do not think, has a shopping centre, certainly not an anchor tenant. We rely on the Foodland at Ridleyton, and I would have thought the member for Davenport is a supporter of Foodland. For Croydon, the principal shopping centre is Foodland at Ridleyton on the other side of South Road, but I digress.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: You've gone to Blackwood, you may as well go to Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Fair enough, too—touché. The member for Davenport is outstanding at coming up with out there, off the cuff amendments. We think a $10,000 maximum penalty will be quite sufficient, thank you.

Mr WILLIAMS: Attorney, I am somewhat curious about new subsection (6), which provides that a fee is not payable under subsection (4)(b) of the principal act, which states, I think, that the Electoral Commissioner may charge a fee to be fixed for providing information. New subsection (6) provides:

A fee is not payable under subsection (4)(b) if the person to whom the information is provided is a member of parliament.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes; that is right.

Mr WILLIAMS: My understanding is that members of parliament have always had access to the information without charge. What is the reason for new subsection (6)?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is a good question. My recollection is fortified by the advice of the Deputy Commissioner, that is, when the previous Liberal government brought in this current electoral law, sex, age band and country of origin were obtainable by members of parliament, but members of parliament had to pay a fee, and I think that I was one of the few members of parliament who paid that fee. We are now proposing to abolish the fee because we take the view that all members of parliament should have this available to them. Some would make more use of it than others—and I am looking at the middle bench.

Mr WILLIAMS: I presume that the Attorney is working on the principle that members of parliament, representing their electorates, should have this information free of charge. I do not have an argument with that, but, to aid the democratic process, why would we not extend the availability of the information without charge to candidates for an election?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I take it from what the member for MacKillop asks that he was not adverting to our earlier debate where all this was teased out, that is, that we are currently working on amendments to the bill to say that if one is a genuine candidate for parliament—and in my view has nominated—one should have access to this. What I am worried about is that—and we were using the example of the franchisee of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Glenelg—someone would go along to the Electoral Commission and say, 'Well, look, I'll be challenging Mr McFetridge at the next election in Morphett. I would like the electronic electoral roll for Morphett and accumulated monthly roll updates for the next 3½ years because I will be challenging Mr McFetridge,' whereas, in fact, the truth is that he is just going to direct mail the catchment of his business.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No. The member for Heysen interjects, 'You just send out unaddressed mail.' Perhaps that is the reason why the member for Heysen's margin has been ever diminishing since she has been in this place, because we know that addressed mail is far more effective as a method for delivering political propaganda than unaddressed mail.

Mr Williams: We do not deliver political propaganda.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Of course. I am sorry. Let me apologise. The member for MacKillop has made the point that the Labor Party deals only in propaganda, the Liberal Party does not. I want the remarks of the member for Heysen and the member for MacKillop on the record so that the readers of Hansard can judge their veracity. Just as personally addressed mail is more effective for the dissemination of information by a sitting member of parliament, so it is more effective in an election campaign, and so it is more effective in commercial marketing. If the member for Heysen does not know that, she should.

Mr PISONI: As the Attorney knows, I am not legally trained, so I am asking for a point of clarification. I think this will be relevant if we go back to amendment No. 5 in relation to amendment No. 7—whether or not we make any changes to that. I am just wondering whether or not it is clear enough or whether this does deplete, if you like, the intention of new subsection (6), which provides:

A fee is not payable under subsection (4)(b) if the person to whom the information is provided is a member of parliament.

Does that mean that a member of parliament, regardless of their electorate, could get this type of information without actually being entitled to it through amendment No. 5? I am sure it is not the intention, but it may very well be—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: No, amendment No. 5. It is clear here. I know that you are looking at making amendments in the upper house, but it is clear here that access to the roll will be restricted to members of the House of Assembly in their own districts. However, you have not made that clear in new subsection (6). It simply says that that information is available free to a member of parliament: it is not restricting that particular measure to members of parliament as it applies in the previous amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Like any legislative instrument, it must be read as a whole. The sections must be read in conjunction with one another. While I seek advice on this, my initial reaction to that is to say that under clause 5 you are getting the feed of names and addresses and those names and addresses are limited to your state district, or one state district. The subsequent information such as sex, date of birth and country of origin can only apply in the context of the names and addresses you already have. It is no good getting date of birth, sex and country of origin in the abstract for the rest of the state. If you only have an entitlement to the names and addresses for the state district of Unley, the rest of the information is useless. You are only interested in attaching that extra information to the names and addresses you have for Unley.

Mr PISONI: It is obvious that the Attorney-General has had no experience in the —

The CHAIR: Order, member for Unley. I have not called you. The Attorney was seeking advice. Have you concluded, Attorney? I saw you turn to your adviser.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have, yes.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I beg to differ from the Attorney's interpretation of the use of that information. Many private sector companies will go out and buy the specific information about geographic areas for their own marketing campaigns.

Let me give an example. A particular attorney-general might want to get a message to an area that had a particularly high number of people born in a particular European country but does not have access to the roll and might want to know how to target that information through a newspaper or an unaddressed mail campaign. Also, if someone was after a particular age demographic, they may very well want to use more of a shotgun approach, if you like, in the marketing of their message and, consequently, that material would be extremely valuable.

I can tell members now that the ABS charges private enterprise an enormous amount of money for that information so they can use local newspapers that are relevant to the demographic that they target their product to, whether that be an age demographic or a cultural demographic. So, I beg to differ with the Attorney-General's explanation as to why that would be obvious. I do not see it as being obvious but, then again, I do not think the same way the Attorney-General does.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right, and you think incorrectly in this case, because that little peroration is entirely superfluous. The only thing state members will be getting is the electoral roll for their state district, and no other. So, if you are not getting a feed of the names and addresses, you will not be getting a feed of the dates of birth, sex or country of origin, and that is perfectly obvious to all members sitting on the other side, except the member for Unley.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mrs REDMOND: Now we get onto a clause—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Here we go, another conspiracy!

Mrs REDMOND: No, no conspiracy. I said in my second reading contribution that I see no reason a homeless person should be deprived of their democratic rights and I welcome the concept and the principle that we should, indeed, encourage our homeless people to be participants in the democratic process. As I also said in my second reading contribution, I think, I suspect that enrolling to vote will not be high on the priority list of most homeless people.

However, we are talking about itinerant persons, not just the homeless, and I want to look at exactly who will be covered by this definition of 'itinerant person', because it seems to me that it is going to capture certainly people who are primary homeless, that is, they are sleeping rough on the streets; and it potentially will cover secondary homeless who are couch surfing or who are in less than permanent accommodation such as shelters and so on.

I do not know whether it covers someone who resides in a boarding house. It would seem to me to cover grey nomads who are coming through the state slowly. I do not know whether it covers a youngster who attains their majority and is therefore entitled to be enrolled to vote and who may leave home and live with a friend for a couple of months and come home again and be part of this boomerang generation that we all seem to be acquiring.

So, the first question is: can the Attorney throw some light on who he anticipates out of those various groups will be covered? As I said, I am quite clear that the primary homeless who are living rough on the streets are covered and I am pretty clear that grey nomads who are travelling through the state slowly are covered—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I hope to be one, one day.

Mrs REDMOND: Well, you have got the grey. I just want some clarity—not in accordance with any definition in the bill, but in terms of the practicality of who is going to be captured by the clause we are now dealing with.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No more so than the member for Heysen.

Mrs REDMOND: What?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A grey nomad.

Mrs REDMOND: I haven't qualified yet. I am older than the Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Good point. The member for Heysen is, indeed, five years older than me.

Mr Venning: You wouldn't think so.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Schubert is right, in that the member for Heysen does behave like a juvenile delinquent, and so do I, usually at the same time. In fact, alas, she is five years older than I am, and is in the same age bracket as the Minister for Families and Communities, the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier.

The CHAIR: Can I point out clause 7 dealt with that, and that we are on clause 8.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen was in tremendously youthful apparel in the last sitting week, and I congratulate her on that.

Mr PISONI: People should get very worried when the Attorney-General starts complimenting them on the way they look.

The CHAIR: It is alright, member for Unley; take your seat. We will all take a deep breath and proceed.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen adds that although, like me, she may be a nomad she is not a grey nomad.

The CHAIR: Do you have any relevant information to provide?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do have some remarks addressing the clause; it will be aimed overwhelmingly at the homeless.

Mrs REDMOND: I guess that brings me to the question of how it will work in practice. My recollection is that the act does not necessarily set out the process. My recollection of the process (and I made a note of it) is that, assuming a homeless person wants to enrol, the first option for where they are enrolled will be their previous enrolment. So, if they were previously enrolled to vote in this state that would be the enrolment applicable. If there is no previous enrolment, or if any previous enrolment was not in this state, then they would look at the next of kin. So (and I think I used this example in my second reading contribution), if I had a homeless brother living in Adelaide and I lived in Stirling, then that would be the next place; if my homeless brother in Adelaide had never been enrolled, or had never been enrolled previously in South Australia, he would then be entitled to enrol in the electorate of the Heysen. If I had a homeless brother living in Adelaide, and he had never been enrolled anywhere else, he might even vote for me! Thirdly, if neither of those provisions apply, then it would be the place of residence of the homeless person.

In fact, there are four provisions. There is the previous place of enrolment, the place of enrolment of the next of kin, the place of birth (which may or may not be relevant; if the person was not born in South Australia then clearly the place of birth would not apply), and finally there is their closest place of connection. There tends to be an aggregation of the homeless in the city of Adelaide—because services are provided here and it is not as cold as Stirling and some other places—so, assuming we have a lot of homeless people who are focused on enrolling to vote, we will have significantly more of those homeless people becoming enrolled for the seat of Adelaide than for any other electorate, disproportionate to the number of homeless people and how they would normally be spread throughout the state.

I would like to know whether my interpretation of this is correct, and whether it is anything more than a decision by the Electoral Commissioner regarding how the decisions are made on how one is to achieve enrolment as a homeless person.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen is right in thinking that the Electoral Commissioner will determine this. I am afraid I have heard some conspiracy theories from the Liberal Party about changes in enrolment, and we have had the situation recently where the federal Liberal spokesman on electoral matters tried to say that it is very suspicious indeed that between elections 30 per cent to 35 per cent of people change their address, and that this must be a Labor conspiracy to place people in the right federal divisions to win the federal election. Of course that is nonsense. People die, people move, people turn 18; it is perfectly natural and there is no conspiracy.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I think the member for Heysen has a good point there. If the turnover went up to 50 per cent that might be suspicious—and who knows, perhaps the turnover is higher in, say, the state district of Adelaide than it is in this state district of the Heysen, given that there is more rental accommodation and more student lodgings (such as university colleges) in the state district of Adelaide. The average turnout to vote in the state district of Adelaide is lower than the turnout to vote in other states districts because so many people who were enrolled in the state district of Adelaide—for instance, in those university colleges—have gone home to where they really live by the time the election is held and do not turn out to vote in Adelaide. However, I digress again.

The point is that the Electoral Commissioner will determine what is the most appropriate enrolled address for an itinerant person. There will not be a conspiracy by St Vincent de Paul or Westcare or Anglicare to place itinerant people in marginal electorates such as Adelaide or Norwood. What is going to happen is that, in the rare case—and I think it will be rare—in which an itinerant person comes forward and says, 'Yes, I would like to vote and I would like to make this my base for the purposes of the electoral roll', the Electoral Commissioner will subject that claim to appropriate scrutiny and make a decision.

Mr WILLIAMS: I draw the Attorney's attention to new section 31A(6), which provides that 'the Electoral Commissioner will also undertake the role so as to indicate that the person is enrolled under this section'. I assume that the reason for doing that is so that the Electoral Commissioner can carry out the relative administration to comply with subsection (11), which provides:

A person ceases to be entitled to be enrolled under this section if—

(b) the person fails to vote in a general election while enrolled under this section.

So, I am assuming that the Electoral Commissioner will be able to say, 'This person is enrolled under this section and, lo and behold, they failed to vote at the general election, so subsection (11) comes into force and their name is removed from the roll.' I assume that is why a note is made in the roll to say that this particular person is enrolled under this section.

Notwithstanding the answer just given to the previous question, my question is: given that there will be a notation on the roll to say that somebody is enrolled under this section, will that information be made available on the general roll, which can be viewed by any member of the public, or indeed made available to a member of parliament under the previous section that we have debated?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is an excellent question from the member for MacKillop.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And as the member for Heysen says—she is quite right—how good the question is can be determined by how long I spend over at that carrel being briefed. I am going to try to wing this one myself.

Mrs Redmond: Would you like to come back to it tomorrow?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I will accept the member for Heysen's advice, because we have to receive a message from the other place.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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