HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 29 April 2009. Page 2515.)

Clause 8.

The CHAIR: My recollection is that we had started and proceeded some distance with consideration of clause 8, but there were still matters outstanding.

Mrs REDMOND: In relation to clause 8, I seem to recall that yesterday the Attorney, in response to an earlier question, suggested that his advisers have to learn to run the four minute mile. That is not what he said, but they are caught unawares on a regular basis on this bill, it seems. However, maybe the Attorney can help with this particular question.

The Attorney suggested that the provisions of clause 8 are primarily directed towards homeless people, and I want to ask him how it is that he asserts that this clause is primarily directed towards homeless people, since it does not have any definition within the clause that refers to homelessness specifically, and it seems to me to be just as applicable to a whole range of other people.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Grey nomads.

Mrs REDMOND: As I suggested yesterday, and the Attorney interjects, grey nomads come to mind. First, can I ask him: in what way is this primarily targeted towards homeless people, given that the clause itself is silent on the matter and could be equally applicable to a whole range of people?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: One never knows whether a clause in a bill will operate in practice with great precision, and clauses have unintended consequences. All I can say is that we were attempting to repeat the commonwealth provision which made provision for homeless people, and that is how, on the whole, it has worked in practice. All I can say to the member for Heysen is that my intention is that this will apply to homeless people. If it applies principally to grey nomads, I am happy.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to know, though, how it will apply, for instance, if I had a son who decided to leave home. I have had one son leave home and I live in hope that eventually my children will leave home.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How many more have you got?

Mrs REDMOND: Another son and a daughter at home. I love them dearly, but they are just very messy individuals to live with.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why does that happen in our portfolio?

Mrs REDMOND: I do not know why I have this yearning to come home to a tidy house, but I do. Let us assume my son, who is enrolled to vote, leaves home (so, home is no longer his principal place of residence) and he moves to a friend's house for a month, or even goes house sitting. I remind the Attorney that the Electoral Act as it exists requires that 'an elector whose principal place of residence changes from one subdivision to another must, within 21 days of becoming entitled to be enrolled for that subdivision' notify the electoral registrar of that change. In common with many other youngsters, let us suppose my son leaves home for a couple of months and comes back, leaves home and goes somewhere else for a couple of months and comes back, and leaves home and does house sitting for a couple of months and comes back. Is my son, then, an itinerant person and will the provisions of new section 31A apply to such a person?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It may do. My old law lecturer, Geoffrey Walker, used to say that if the law were applied in every case in the fullness of its meaning to every person, we would live in a totalitarian society.

Mrs Redmond: And we would all be in gaol.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, and we would all be in gaol; and I think the member for Stuart appreciates that and says perhaps that occurs sometimes already.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I was probably in breach of the law back in the mid-1970s, because I left home to go and study at the Australian National University. I was enrolled in the federal division of Boothby, the state district of Mitcham.

Mr Goldsworthy: Is that what makes you so kooky—going there?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I went to the Australian National University. The member for Kavel interjects, 'That's what made you so kooky.' I will offer that to the next alumni publication. I spent more than 21 days—or whatever the threshold was—at Bruce Hall, the residential college at the Australian National University. I probably should have enrolled three times a year for the federal division of Fraser, but I did not, because I could not care less about ACT politics or who the federal member for North Canberra was. So, I stayed enrolled in Boothby so I could vote—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; well, there is probably a statute of limitations on it. I stayed enrolled in Boothby—at 19 Claire Street, Lower Mitcham—so that I could vote for Robin Millhouse and—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I worked on Robin Millhouse's campaigns—so I could vote for an unemployed race caller, Alf Gard, at the Boothby by-election created by—what was it created by? Gunnie, can you remember? Anyway, there was a by-election in Boothby, and I voted for Alf Gard. Do you remember Alfie Gard?

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: I do, yes. I also remember my friend, John McLeay.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: John McLeay.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. Well, maybe he stepped down or got an appointment from the Fraser government, or something. Anyway, there was a by-election in Boothby. Perhaps it was Steele Hall doing something. No, Steele Hall was trying to get in there, wasn't he?

An honourable member: Is this relevant?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, it's not relevant. The point I am making is that no-one enforces these provisions in the Electoral Act to the nth degree. My son Hugh left home. He moved a couple of blocks on the other side of South Road into Ridleyton from Croydon.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, he is still in the Croydon electorate. But, by crossing the road, just a couple of blocks away, he goes from the federal division of Port Adelaide to the federal division of Adelaide—from a very safe seat to a marginal seat. So, I have been at him to enrol to vote there so he can vote for Kate Ellis, but I am not making any impact. I do not think anyone is going to prosecute him and, by the time they do, he will be back home—there is nothing more certain than that. So, I just think that these provisions are applied with common sense.

Mr PISONI: I am just interested in the words 'who is in South Australia' in subsection (1)(a), as being a requirement, or someone who qualifies, to be an itinerant person on the roll. I note that they would also qualify for enrolment, because they do not qualify under section 29(1)(c). That section provides that they need to be in a residence for a continuous period of at least one month. So, my question is twofold. It also refers to a division, and I just want to know whether that enrolment in a division is actually in the same state, and if there are resources for the State Electoral Office to check to see whether somebody is an itinerant person—say, for example, a campervan of Young Labor people coming over from Victoria or Western Australia. How long do you have to be in South Australia before you can qualify to be an itinerant voter? Also, when you are referring to districts or subdivisions in the act and in the bill, are you referring to subdivisions of South Australia or are you referring to any subdivision in Australia?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Let me help Mr Criminon with this provision.

Mr PISONI: I take a point of order. I do not know what the number is, but members are to be referred to by the district they represent. I ask that the Attorney-General respect that standing order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: For the benefit of the member for Unley, who so recently introduced the house to the documents about Criminon, the provision is quite clear: the Electoral Commissioner assesses the claim for enrolment, subjects it to analysis, and decides whether it should be granted or not. He looks into the matters enumerated in the clause.

The member who occupies so much of the house's time with hatred and fanciful scenarios based on a hatred of the governing party, tries to tell us that the Australian Labor Party is going to send campervans of Young Labor members from the other five states of Australia into the marginal state districts of South Australia—like Unley or Norwood. This will be dealt with by the Electoral Commissioner guided by the clear provisions of the clause. One of them is: a person who is in South Australia and—I leave out the irrelevant parts—he or she does not have a fixed place of residence, whether within the state or elsewhere.

One of the obvious questions for the Electoral Commissioner to ask is: do you have a fixed place of residence? If the answer is no, whereas in fact they live in a leafy crescent in Canberra, then that will expose them to the risk of criminal prosecution under the Electoral Act, which has done so much to blight forever the careers of certain Queenslanders. I do not think any Young Labor people (or Young Liberal people) in this day and age have not learnt from what occurred in Queensland in the 1990s. They will not wish to have themselves in breach of the Electoral Act and with criminal convictions on their record that will blight their future political careers. I just do not think any of them will attempt it.

Frankly, I do want to make this remark about the Liberal Party's approach to the Electoral Act. It has long been the case, since the early 1990s, that certain members of the Liberal Party—not all of them but some of them—have taken the view that there is a gigantic conspiracy in electoral enrolment in Australia, and that the Labor Party is moving around throngs of people, over state borders, over federal division borders, over state district borders, and that it is the movement of these nomads, these Bedouins of socialism, who are affecting the result in general elections and leading to the very narrow defeat of coalition candidates.

This is a delusion. All of our experience tells us that the only place this occurs is in internal party ballots because you cannot get enough people on the move to affect the result in a federal division, which has an average of what, 100,000 people, or a state district with an average enrolment of 25,000 people. But you can make a difference in an internal party ballot.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: But, member for Heysen, look at the proportions here. Do you seriously suggest that party activists in Australia are moving people around between state districts and federal divisions or across state borders to try to influence the result in electorates of 100,000 people or 25,000 people and risking criminal convictions by so doing? You only have to state it to know that it is ridiculous.

Where people have been caught is that they have done just this to try to get into preselection ballots they should not be in and into party ballots for the election of delegates, whether the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or other parties, and it is then that they have been caught because the number of voters in those ballots are so small it becomes worth it, proportionate, to take the risk.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney will be pleased to know that I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think that the Labor Party, or any party, has people going around doing this, but what I want to explore is the possibility because you say that the person would be exposed to serious criminal conviction, having, in the answer to my previous question, said that the Electoral Office does not actually pursue all these people, à la the example of your son or my son moving out, and so on.

So, you have already told us, in answer to one question, that the Electoral Office does not pursue these people. To make the point, though, I can well understand that it would be an offence if someone had a flat, for instance, and they maintained a lease on that flat, and they then dodged over here and said, 'I am entitled to enrolment,' because their statement would then be false, or if they owned a home and then came over here and tried to get enrolment.

But if they are like one of my kids who does not own a home and who just sets off on the road, à la a grey nomad in the older generation, then surely there is no breach possible. If someone simply comes over the border, without a fixed place of abode, they do not have a leased or rented property, they do not own a property, they have been living at home with mum and dad or the grey nomads have sold their property, then surely that is the very person who is going to be entitled to enrolment under this provision. Is that not the case?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer to that is, plainly, yes, but the member for Unley's question came from a different angle. The member for Unley's question was premised on the assumption that this was happening in the dozens, or hundreds, and that people were doing it for an improper purpose. That is an entirely different matter.

Where there is a hotly contested party ballot for delegates, or for a preselection, then there are going to be quite a few jealous eyes on these movements. When I first got involved in Labor Party politics, John Trainer used to go out and doorknock, in, I think, the electorate of Walsh, every new member of the Australian Labor Party to make sure that they answered the door and that they lived where they said they lived. I admired that reasonable paranoia.

Mr Goldsworthy: It's just good auditing.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed, as the member for Kavel says, that is just good auditing. That will occur in party ballots to make sure that these provisions are not abused. Similarly, if a candidate loses a federal election or a state election by a tiny number of votes, his or her supporters will be scouring the electoral roll to look for bodgie votes to take to the Court of Disputed Returns. So, I agree with the member for Heysen that on the whole the attitude of the Electoral Commission and society to people, like Mr Redmond and Mr Atkinson so recently moved, is to take a relaxed approach to that matter because their movement is not going to make any difference to a federal election or a state election.

The member for Unley might interject, 'Well, it might. One vote might be the difference.' It might, but where the scrutiny will come in—and the scrutiny will naturally follow—is in internal party ballots and in very close results.

Mrs REDMOND: Attorney, the point is that no amount of scrutiny will make the circumstance unlawful or improper if a person chooses to rent or own house but go in their campervan from electorate to electorate as elections occur around the country and go into the provisions to allow for the registration of an itinerant voter. That is the point. The point I understand the member for Unley to be making is that, under this provision, it is possible lawfully to plant people, provided they are not breaching any other provision or falsely answering the question of whether they have a principal place of residence elsewhere, to come into an area, become registered under this provision, participate in a vote and then immediately move their Combi Van onto the next caravan park at the next convenient place. That is perfectly possible, is it not?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Of course; it is Antony Green on wheels. I understand where the member for Heysen is coming from, but I do not think very many Australians suffer the malady of politics so greatly that they will get in their campervan and move around between the Australian states and territories so that they can vote eight times in an electoral cycle.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I put on the record that I have absented myself from cabinet in accordance with my agreement with the Premier to act as a minister within the current government. I have done so because there are a number of elements of this bill about which I have concerns, and I will be raising those concerns during the course of the debate.

I ask this question on the clause because I have been listening to the debate and I am a bit miffed as to where the Electoral Commissioner will decide to enrol that person, in which district, and how they will determine in which district that person will be entitled to vote.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The relevant part of the clause, subsection (3), provides:

The form approved by the Electoral Commissioner may require the applicant to specify an address that may be taken to be the person's principal place of residence for the purposes of this Act.

However, if they are homeless or a grey nomad, they will not have a 'principal place', so it is a nominal 'principal place'. I would think that, for homeless people, that principal place might be St Vincent de Paul, Whitmore Square, or Baptist WestCare, or it might be a Salvation Army lodge or a caravan park. Subsection (5) provides:

The Electoral Commissioner may, in connection with the operation of subsection (4) and after taking into account any address specified under subsection (3), include on their roll an address in the subdivision that is taken to be the person's principal place of residence for the purposes of this act and any other act or law relating to the enrolment under this act.

I think that even the member for Heysen and the member for Unley can see that if you are genuinely homeless person you will either have an absurdly frequent series of new enrolments or, more likely, you will not be enrolled at all. And the latter is what we are trying to overcome, to give people a base even though they do not have a principal place of residence.

The member for Unley is insinuating that the government is doing this in order for camper vans—and he said it—of Young Labor people to descend from other states at the close of enrolment. I reject that suggestion. Furthermore, I would say to the member for Unley that this provision has been in the commonwealth legislation for, I would think since Mick Young's time as special minister of state, so you are looking at something 25 years. During the entire period of the Howard government it was not taken out. Clearly, the federal Parliamentary Liberal Party did not share the member for Unley's anxiety.

Mrs REDMOND: For the benefit of the member for Chaffey, before she leaves, I would like to clarify what the Attorney did not seem to cover in what we discussed yesterday, that is, the regime that is in place as to the order in which the Electoral Commissioner deals with things, which I understand to be that, if the elector was previously enrolled, that is the first option. But, if there was no previous enrolment in this state they then go to the enrolment of the next of kin. If there is no next of kin in this state they go to the place of birth. If there is no place of birth in this state then they go to the place of connection. Can the Attorney expand upon how that works?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Sure, I can expand upon it. We are talking about the itinerant electors provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Here is the hierarchy of considerations:

The Australian Electoral Officer shall cause the name of the applicant to be added to the Roll:

(a) for the Subdivision for which the applicant last had an entitlement to be enrolled;

(b) if the person has never had such an entitlement, for a Subdivision for which any of the applicant's next of kin is enrolled;

(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) applies, for the Subdivision in which the applicant was born;

which would put me in Davenport—

(d) if none of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) applies, the Subdivision with which the applicant has the closest connection.

In our regulations I imagine we will give the Electoral Commissioner somewhat more flexibility than that, but I think that will be the hierarchy of considerations in this state also.

Mr PISONI: I take it then, Attorney-General, that you could unequivocally tell this committee that nowhere in Labor Party preselections has the itinerant roll at a federal level been used to stack Labor Party branches for preselection. Are you confident to make that claim in the chamber? No; I did not think so. My question—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Unley, that question does not relate to the Attorney's responsibilities in relation to this bill and is therefore out of order. I do not want it to stand on the record for you to then cite in later campaign material. Proceed with your question.

Mr PISONI: I didn't. It was raised by the Attorney-General, and why wouldn't he want it the question? He can answer the question.

The CHAIR: Order! Debate with the chair is disorderly. Please take your seat. The Attorney-General has generously indicated he will make some remarks.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Chair, you ruled the question out of order, rightly, because it was not relevant to the bill; then the member for Unley decided to put words into my mouth when I did not have an opportunity under standing orders to answer, so that he can then later circulate that I refused to answer the question. I did not refuse to answer the question. It was a question which was out of order.

The CHAIR: Exactly. Member for Unley, do you have a question that is in order? I remind all members that standing orders provide for three questions. I have been extraordinarily generous, so I do ask that questions conform to standing orders and seek new information. Member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, chair. I am interested in the provisions that the minister has explained about how to identify where people are enrolled and how it works with section 29(1)(d) of the act. A person cannot enrol if they are not of sound mind. Obviously, in the first instance, a previous place of enrolment would be the relevant address, but that is not relevant if it was interstate.

If it does not exist, then the current enrolment for the next of kin will be the relevant address. Again, if that is interstate, it is not relevant. The third option is the place of birth. Again, if it is interstate or overseas it is not relevant. If it was overseas would it be where the naturalisation process took place? Finally, it is the closest place of connection. Other than the fact that the person was enrolled interstate or was born interstate or overseas, what is the definition of 'unsound mind'?

As a simple person, I would suggest that, if someone could not answer those questions and tell the Electoral Commissioner where they were last enrolled or where they were born or their next of kin, it is unlikely they would be of sound mind. Will the minister clarify the definition of 'unsound mind' that the Electoral Commissioner will be instructed to use?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No-one of sound mind would have introduced the Criminon forgeries to parliament, but I think you will find there is extensive case law on the question of unsound and sound mind. I refer the member for Unley to the AustLII website and suggest he do a search on sound mind and unsound mind.

Mr PISONI: I have asked what the Electoral Commissioner would be using.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Electoral Commissioner would be guided by the law, as she always is.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to ask a question about division 3, new section 32. Many regional families send their children to Adelaide for education and, therefore, they become boarding students. In many cases, those students are in year 12 and turn 18—or they are at least 17—and they are sent a preliminary notice about the need to enrol. My daughter in year 12 at Loreto has gone through that process. I was not sure where she should be registered to vote. Will the minister give a clear direction on that?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is a good question from the member for Goyder, a common query. The member for Heysen and I discussed it earlier. The act provides that if you are at a place for 30 days you should then lodge an application for enrolment there. I think that would lead to absurd results for your daughter because three or four times a year she would be required to enrol at Loreto which is in the Norwood state district. Then, if she spent long enough back on the peninsula, she would be required to enrol for her dad's electorate. She would be going back and forth.

My way of resolving that, when I was in a similar situation, was to enrol for my parents' address where I spent the university vacation—namely, federal division of Boothby, state district of Mitcham—and not to enrol in the federal division of Fraser in the ACT. As I said earlier, I was probably in breach, but it just seemed a common-sense solution. If I were your daughter, I would be sticking with dad's electorate and holding her vote over him in financial negotiations.

Mrs REDMOND: This seems to me to be getting pretty confusing, because we have the Attorney-General advising across the chamber for someone to commit a known breach of the Electoral Act. I appreciate what the Attorney says; that is, common sense dictates that the member for Goyder's daughter should enrol in his electorate, but that is not what the act says. I am curious that the Attorney keeps talking about her having to re-enrol three or four times a year. He has made that reference twice and I ask what prompts him to make that suggestion. If she is living at a boarding house in Adelaide and only returning home occasionally for a weekend—so never getting to the point—then surely this act says she has to enrol in Adelaide and—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, Norwood.

Mrs REDMOND: Wherever it is. I am just taking a generic example of a youngster from the country who is at boarding school and who qualifies by way of age to enrol to vote. The act says that the person has to enrol where their principal place of residence is and they are going home for an occasional weekend. I think what the Attorney said about common sense is absolutely right; that is, notionally, that person should be able to enrol where their heart is, basically. However, it seems to me a nonsense that we are debating a bill on the basis that it is going to say one thing, when we know that the Electoral Commissioner is not going to enforce what the bill says, that common sense dictates that people will not behave according to the bill.

The reality of the situation is so far away from what the bill is requiring that it would be sensible to try to draft it, even to the point of putting a special provision for a student. To have the Attorney-General of the state telling a member of this parliament across the chamber that the appropriate thing is to ignore what the acts says and do what is common sense seems to me an untenable position for an Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is not untenable at all, and it goes back to the remarks I made at the very beginning of our debate on this today; that is, if the law was enforced to the nth degree against everyone, then we would be living in a totalitarian state. I stand by my recommendation to the member for Goyder's daughter. It is quite possible, as the member for Heysen says, that the member for Goyder's daughter will not be back to Yorke Peninsula long enough to establish an entitlement, except during the Christmas holidays, but even so, even if the change back and forth is only once a year, why would you do it?

Presumably, the member for Goyder's daughter will go onto tertiary education, may stay at one of the university colleges near the University of Adelaide, or live in a group house, and keep going back to Yorke Peninsula all through her tertiary education—the same considerations apply. The provision is there to be used in the worst and most blatant cases of malpractice, and that is where a person falsifies their electoral enrolment for an improper purpose.

An improper purpose would be nominating an address at which he or she does not live, ever, for the purposes of becoming eligible for an internal party ballot. That would be an example of malpractice. No-one is going to complain about the member for Goyder's daughter maintaining her enrolment in Goyder when, in fact, she is living much of the year at the Loreto boarding school, and no-one is going to complain about my son being enrolled at Thomas Street, Croydon when, in fact, for most of the time, he is bedding down at William Langman Circuit in Ridleyton, because no-one cares. It does not affect anything. It is a question of where their heart is and what is the practical result.

However, if the member for Heysen's other son moves into Bragg and gives an address in Bragg when, in fact, he is living in Newland, for the purpose of being in an internal ballot, I reckon there might be a few people who would dob him in. They would say, 'There's a Redmond living in Toorak Gardens. We will go around and doorknock that one!' Like John Trainer. So, let's use some commonsense.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to ask a question about division 3 that the member for Goyder was talking about, and that division of this clause deals, of course, with compulsory enrolment and transfer. In a way, it relates to what we were talking about before, that is, the itinerant persons—it is all within the same clause. As I read the itinerant persons provisions, putting aside all the other things we have been discussing, if someone is an itinerant person and they apply and get enrolled to vote, if they do not then vote their name is struck from the register but that appears to be the only consequence. If they later want to vote, they have to go through the process of re-enrolling, but there is no penalty attaching to a failure to vote if you are itinerant, and that is sensible.

However, if I had an 18 year old son in the circumstances I earlier described, who classified himself as itinerant and enrolled under the provisions of the itinerant persons because he is moving—he spent two months somewhere else and came back home like a boomerang kid and went somewhere else and came back home, and so on—I think the Attorney agreed earlier that he could classify as itinerant. On that basis, would the Attorney agree that it would be possible for a young person who was so minded to avoid the provisions of the compulsory enrolment by classifying as an itinerant voter and then not voting?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Itinerants would receive an apparent failure to vote notice at their principal place of residence.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: All I can say is, in the weeks after the declaration of the polls, there will be a welter of apparent failure to vote notices going to St Vincent de Paul, Whitmore Square, and the likelihood is that none of them will be enforced. However, once an itinerant person enrols to vote, they are subject to the same regime as the rest of us.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Attorney may have already addressed this question, but I just heard him say that, if an itinerant fails to vote, they would get a notice addressed to their principal place of residence. That has to be an oxymoron. How can they be defined as an itinerant if they have a principal place of residence, Attorney?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for MacKillop has not been listening. The principal place of residence for an itinerant person is the place that the Electoral Commissioner deems it to be, the itinerant person having filled in an enrolment form and nominating a place, which might be any number of places. It might be St Vincent de Paul, Whitmore Square; it might be a caravan park; it might be the rented premises they were last in; it might be their next of kin's residence—any number of places. Having received the application, the Electoral Commissioner studies it, subjects it to a hierarchy of tests as to where the principal place of residence is, and nominates one in the sure and certain knowledge that it is a fiction.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, there is a convention in the British parliament that members must be present for the whole debate to be entitled to a question. I will ask you to be cognisant of that.

Mr WILLIAMS: That is a delightful convention, Madam Chair, and it is one that really interests me, because I happen to know that there are only enough seats in the British parliament to accommodate about a third of the members.

The CHAIR: Correct. It has always been sufficient.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is a most interesting and quaint convention.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There's no shortage of chairs here, Mitch.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, my understanding is—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! This debate has been going for a very long time. I ask members to really focus and not waste the time of the committee. Member for MacKillop, please proceed immediately to your question.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I recall the Attorney's words correctly, he said that, once an itinerant person has registered with the commissioner and appears on the roll, they will be subject to the same provisions of the act as any other enrolled voter. Does that mean that, if the itinerant person changes their principal place of residence, as deemed by the commissioner, within—is the period one month or three months?

Mrs Redmond: One month.

Mr WILLIAMS: One month. So, within a month of changing their principal place of residence, they are obliged to notify the commissioner?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Mr WILLIAMS: And if they do not notify the commissioner?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for MacKillop picks me up well. There is no penalty for itinerant electors who obtain a genuine principal place of residence, namely, they are in the same place for 30 days. They do not get penalised for not notifying that they have one but, then again, who does?


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]


The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When an itinerant voter is in another electorate and wishes to do an absentee vote, how does he prove his residential address to the satisfaction of the clerk on the day, given that he will not have any identification of a fixed address?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is a declaration vote. Being a declaration vote, the envelope would be analysed subsequently to make sure that they are enrolled for where they say they are voting.

Mrs REDMOND: I genuinely did have two more questions on this.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen's maths is failing her.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I know, but my failing maths was of great advantage to the Attorney yesterday.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Probably, but it is a long section.

The CHAIR: The rules do not change.

Mrs REDMOND: Subsection (6) of new section 31A states that the Electoral Commissioner will also annotate the roll so as to indicate that the person is enrolled, so there is some sort of little asterisk that will say that this person is enrolled as an itinerant voter. Is that going to be somehow discretely done so that only the Electoral Commissioner knows that and can use the provisions of the section, or is that going to be, for instance, on the copy of the roll made available to members of parliament?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This question was asked yesterday (on the same clause) and the answer is that I intend for itinerant electors to be marked on the roll as itinerant. I did that in response to a question from the member for Unley. As I recall, the member for Unley wanted them indicated on the electoral roll—I could be wrong about the member but it was someone on the opposition side—because he did not want to be sending direct mail to an address where the elector was unlikely to be. I indicated that it was my intention that they be indicated on the roll as itinerant and I am informed that that is the effect of the clause and that will put it beyond doubt in regulations. I am told that, under the federal system, what comes up on the roll is 'no fixed address'. It is a bit like the people whose names are suppressed. They are on the electoral roll and their address is known to the Electoral Commission but it is not published.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The CHAIR: We have two sets of amendments to this clause before us: one lodged by the member for Mitchell and one lodged by the Attorney-General. In general, I will take the approach of inviting the member for Mitchell to move his amendments first. However, in considering whether the amendment to be moved by the Attorney gives the committee a clearer choice, I will invite the Attorney to move his amendment first. In this case, in relation to amendment No. 1 from the member for Mitchell and amendment No. 1 from the Attorney, I consider the committee will have a clearer choice if we consider first the amendment moved by the Attorney-General. Then we will have a clause in the form desired by the mover of the bill and then we can consider the amendment of the member for Mitchell. Is the committee clear on that? Attorney, I invite you to move your amendment first on the grounds that it will give the committee a clearer choice.

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

Page 8, line 17 [clause 9(1), inserted definition of eligible political party, (b)]—Delete '500' and substitute:

200.

My amendment deletes the number 500 and inserts the number 200.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is circulated.

The CHAIR: It has been circulated for several days.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It went around yesterday. This is my concession to the minor parties in this chamber and in the other chamber. We had proposed to put it up to 500, and we were proposing to do that because that was roughly proportionate to what it was in other states, considering their population and our population, and perhaps the increase in population that had occurred in the years since the Electoral Act was passed.

The government accepts that increasing the minimum number will make it more difficult for new political parties to obtain registration and, indeed, that was the intention because members will recall, I think in the late eighties or early nineties, there were a series of parties beginning with the word 'overtaxed': the Overtaxed Motorists, the Overtaxed Smokers.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The Happy Birthday Party.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Happy Birthday Party takes us back to 1973 and to Susie Creamcheese's challenge to Gil Langley in the state district of Unley. Oh, how I wished that I had been able to vote at that time, because I was in fact living in the state district of Unley, but 15 year olds are not allowed to vote.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Susie Creamcheese challenged Gil Langley in the state district of Unley. I am pretty sure it was the 1973 general election. It could have been the 1975 general election. Can the member for Davenport help me there?

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Well, I was only 14 at the time. It was '73.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: '73 you think?

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Teenage nerds, member for Mitchell, that is what the member for Davenport and I were, letterboxing at that tender age.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Either that or no pocket money.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I accept that interjection. The member for Davenport said it was either that or no pocket money. So, we were trying to stop the registration of bogus political parties, parties that would just run interference in the campaign. It was aimed at preventing the registration of sham political parties. The government believes the current number of 150 is too low. It has not been changed for 24 years.

It has been argued by my colleagues from minor parties that 500 is too many, so the government suggests a much more modest increase from 150 to 200, owing to the enormous weight that the National Party carries in the coalition. The government believes this figure should satisfy concerns about setting the threshold beyond that which would be achievable by a new political party formed without a high profile.

For instance, I do not think that the FREE Party, set up by the Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club, would have any difficulty going from 150 to 200. As it is, they are in on the ground floor at 150, and that registration will be respected.

Mr HANNA: I appreciate the Attorney-General's concession in relation to this. The thrust of the bill, as I see it, is to make it more difficult, in many ways, for Independents and minor parties to succeed and flourish. However, although I will not be supporting the Attorney-General's amendment and I will be moving my amendment if the Attorney-General's amendment should fail, I do appreciate that concession.

I would say that there is one other factor not mentioned, and that is that although the population has increased, I think we also need to recognise that social participation in groups has decreased markedly in the past few decades. That applies to church groups, sporting groups, political groups and so on. So, that figure of 150, although the population has increased, is still a fairly big ask for anything more than a tennis club.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Mitchell makes a very good point, and I agree with him. However, what I do disagree with him about is that it in any way affects Independents. Given that the member for Mitchell, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Ann Bressington will run as Independents at the next general election, and ran as Independents previously (if you include Nick Xenophon as John Darley's predecessor), it will make no difference to them at all because they do not require party registration.

It is not so long ago, if we go back before the 1985 act and the 1984 act federally, that there was no point to registration because you put your name on the ballot paper without a party designation. It did not say that you were Labor or Liberal, and you relied on your party workers handing out how-to-vote cards to tell the voters which party you were from. That seemed to work, by and large. I remember my mother boasting one day that she had voted Labor ever since the day she was enrolled to vote, which must have been for the 1943 general election. She then said, 'Oh, except in the 1951 election, when I had moved out of home to another electorate and I was not sure who the Labor candidate was.' We have overcome that with registration.

The biggest benefit that registration gives is that you can put the name of the party on the ballot paper. Really, if you are not registered, and you are running for a state district, it is not a great penalty not to be registered because all you do is use the old technology of having your supporters hand out how-to-vote cards outside.

Mrs REDMOND: First of all, I welcome the Attorney's change of heart in relation to the numbers, and I agree with the comment made by the member for Mitchell—and, indeed, endorsed by the Attorney-General—that it is harder to get people to participate. Given the size of our state, I think it is an appropriate concession, so I welcome that.

I have one question in relation to subclause (4), and it is somewhat technical. I realise that we have not reached that point yet, and I am happy to wait. However, I am anxious that we not move on from clause 9 before I have a chance to ask the question.

The CHAIR: I will deal with the two amendments in relation to clause 9(1) first and then deal with other issues. Does that help you, member for Chaffey?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Yes; I appreciate that ruling, Madam Chair. I would also like to acknowledge the concession made by the Attorney and the government in relation to this. I was supportive of the amendments to be moved by the member for Mitchell. However, knowing how numbers work, I think that 200 is a very good concession from 500. Being a leader of a minority party in this parliament—a party that currently has only one parliamentary member—I think it is important that I look out for the future of my party. The ask of 500 members in the context of declining participation in civic matters in our community is a very tall ask, so I appreciate the concession that has been made in this regard.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I would like to clarify the Attorney's answer, as I am not sure that I heard him correctly. I think he said that the benefit of registration is that you get your party name on the ballot paper.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does a non-party candidate get the word 'Independent'?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes; not only do they get the word 'Independent' on the ballot paper but, if they want to, they can have five other words on the ballot paper following it saying what kind of Independent they are.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes; that is one possibility—Independent Farmer for Free Firearms. Another actual entry on the ballot paper was from Mark Aldridge, now a candidate for the FREE Party, who ran, I think, in the 2002 general state election as the Independent Liberal Labor Democrat Alliance. I will have provisions in a subsequent clause dealing with that matter.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: I invite questions and comments in relation to the other parts of the clause.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to clarify one issue. I think I am pretty clear in that, under section 36(4)(a), basically, a person cannot be enrolled in two different parties. As I read subsection (4)(a), a member who is relied on by two or more political parties to nominate, but have to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: They can't be relied upon.

Mrs REDMOND: Right. So, when your are registering, and you have 200 members, if there are two different parties registering, even if they are completely unrelated with unrelated issues—one is the Free Marijuana party and one is Family First—you cannot choose to belong to two separate parties as the equivalent of a charter member, that is, a person who is actually on the registration for the formation and registration of that party.

My question is really more technical to the representative from the office of the Electoral Commissioner. How is this checked? Is there some sort of manual checking or is there computerised checking? How do they go about checking?

I was contemplating this question when we were talking about 500 members, and it seemed to me that there are a lot of people in a list of 500. How do they pick up the fact that someone might be on both lists, especially if it is a person who is a member of an existing registered party, and then a new party comes along?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In about 1973, there was an office holder in the Young Labor contingent, who was also an office holder with the Liberal Movement, and she got rumbled and turfed. I am told that in the age of computers it is much easier to cross check, and that is how they will do it. They will run a computer search. The vice that we are trying to deal with here is the Overtaxed Motorists, Overtaxed Smokers, Overtaxed Etcetera Party, using the same 150 people to register sham parties to run interference.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That raises another question. If you have a party that has three, four or 14, members in the parliament, is it possible for a member of that party to be the person registered for another party for the purposes of that section? For example—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That's right. Liberal Party registration requires only one member in the parliamentary party for registration purposes. Does that mean the other 13 members could endorse the Overtaxed parties?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It was a splendid question. The answer is that if a party is relying on its parliamentary representation for registration it does not have to lodge 200 names and addresses of people who are members, but it might do so out of an abundance of caution, lest its parliamentary representation be swept away or defect. If that registered party was relying solely on its parliamentary representatives and it did not rely on some of those parliamentary representatives as members for the purposes of registration extra parliamentary, then they would be free to support the registration of a second political party of which they were a member. I would think that the rules of the first political party would prevent their doing that, but it may be that the party has split or it may be that the party is in transition to a new shell; who knows? The member for Chaffey is right in thinking that this is possible.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: For the purposes of the direction of preferences, for example, a party that had a number of members could establish registration on the basis of parliamentary members' representation, using their members within the house? For example, a member of the Liberal Party could also be a member of the Overtaxed Motorists Party and endorse that party for registration purposes, if they were running a candidate in a particular seat that might be useful to them. Is that possible?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think it is possible. I suppose that the person doing that would risk exposure. Also, I suppose it is possible that members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party could covertly be members of the National Party and use it for the registration of the National Party.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

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

Page 9, line 5 [clause 10, inserted paragraph (f)(i)]—Delete '500' and substitute:

200

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 10A.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 9, after line 23—

After clause 10 insert:

10A—Amendment of section 40—Order in which applications are to be determined

Section 40—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) If, during the period of 2 months immediately preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934, an application is received by the Electoral Commissioner for registration of a political party, that application must not be determined until after the general election.

The Attorney-General and the government were obviously concerned that parties could spring up shortly before an election and tactically surprise other candidates or parties contesting the election, and so he is seeking to set a period of six months before the election and have some requirements about parties essentially giving notice that they will be contesting an election.

I can see some merit in the argument, but I think it is unnecessarily prohibitive to require that six month period. My amendment is cast in the same terms, but it simply stipulates a period of two months. If a group wants to register as a political party, their application has to be received by the Electoral Commissioner at least two months before the election, otherwise it will not be determined until after the general election. That is what my amendment says.

It seems to me that, in the period leading up to an election, there may well be issues of considerable public interest and controversy. It is hard to predict what they might be. There might be some development to do with the River Murray or some development to do with a public works project that becomes controversial, and so I think we need to allow parties to emerge (based on those issues) as late as possible close to an election. At the same time, the balancing factor is that there should not be anything sneaky about the registration of a political party in order to create a tactical surprise and some sort of unfair benefit arising from that.

I can understand that the motivation behind the Attorney-General's amendment is a genuine consideration. At the same time, I think it is more important that we allow political parties to emerge on issues surrounding issues of the day until a fairly late period in the peace before an election, hence my amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And well might the member for Mitchell canvass this amendment because we all recall that, when he was running for Mitchell last time as a Greens Party candidate, he was heading for oblivion and then he resurrected himself by adopting a new political designation which was tremendously successful and got him something like 25 per cent of the primary vote. That is the experience of the member for Mitchell; namely, that political circumstances in the state district of Mitchell changed quite dramatically very close to polling day.

The member for Mitchell's amendment seeks to insert a new subsection into section 40 that prevents the Electoral Commissioner determining an application for registration by a political party that is received within two months of the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act. Effectively, the member for Mitchell's amendment will require a party seeking registration to lodge its application at least two months before polling day.

Requiring political parties to register a reasonable period of time before an election is one of the mechanisms in the bill aimed at preventing the registration of sham parties. Currently, clause 11(2) of the bill addresses this by an amendment to section 42 of the act that provides that registration will not have effect for the purpose of parts 8, 9 and 10 of the act until six months after the publication of the notice of registration in the Gazette. This means a party must have obtained registration at least six months before polling day.

I have consulted the Electoral Commissioner about the member for Mitchell's proposal. She advises that the Electoral Commission would need up to five months to process an application for registration under the new provisions. Given the need to vet declarations of membership and the possible need to deal with objections—the objection process—to registration, two months is not enough time. The commissioner advises that, to be safe, were the member for Mitchell's proposal that the cut-off date be a date by which applications for registration must be lodged rather than the date by which gazettal of the party's registration must occur, that date must be at least six months out from polling day.

Having considered the member for Mitchell's amendment and the advice of the Electoral Commissioner, the government proposes that the bill be amended in line with his amendment so that the deadline be a date by which applications for registration must be lodged but that this date be six months rather than two months before the date on which the general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act. This will provide certainty to parties considering registration, while ensuring that the commission has sufficient time to process the applications before an election.

Mrs REDMOND: I think at this stage at least, we support the member for Mitchell's amendment. Members may recall that during the second reading debate we indicated that, in our view, whilst we understand the need to allow for processes to be gone through, as the member for Mitchell indicated, there could be circumstances which arise in a very short time before an election which give rise to the need for people to form a political party. Indeed, we suggested in the course of the second reading debate that we thought that the period of two months should be sufficient to allow an appropriate assessment of the bona fides of the applicant and the application for registration. So we were minded to support that.

I hear what the Attorney says about his discussions with the Electoral Commissioner, and I would invite the Attorney to arrange for us to have perhaps another meeting with the Electoral Commissioner between this place and the other place in order to go over the details of that because it may be, for instance, that those discussions were held while the assessment was still going to be at 500 people rather than the now 200 people. The Attorney answered in response to my previous question that they now have computer systems for checking whether there is doubling up of people. So I would like to know some further detail.

We may indeed be persuadable on this issue but, at the moment, on the face of it, it appears to us that, to check the bona fides and do an appropriate assessment, two months should be sufficient to allow for that job to be done and that would not be unnecessarily cumbersome. I think that the mechanism by which the member for Mitchell has achieved the purpose, and which the government has accepted within the terms of the drafting, is a good one. I endorse the idea that we need to allow for people to register a party and contest an election, and to do that with a registered party on a particular issue—whether it be the Save Glenside Hospital Party or the No More Freeways Party, or whatever might come up as—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The Open Barton Road Party.

Mrs REDMOND: Or the Open Barton Road Party that the Attorney may himself establish. There could be a hotly contested issue that comes up within six months of an election and, in our view, it would be unreasonable to stop a party forming to contest that upcoming election on that issue, using whatever the name is that alerts people to that issue.

As I said, our inclination is to support the proposal by the member for Mitchell. However, I take note of the Attorney's indication that he has discussed the specific issues about the need for the assessment being likely to take longer. If we can be persuaded of that between the houses we may change our position, but at this stage we believe that two months should be, on any reasonable assessment, sufficient to assess 200 people as to the bona fides of the application and the eligibility for registration.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the member for Heysen's position is a reasonable one. The clause will go through on the government's numbers but, if the member for Heysen has time to meet with the Electoral Commissioner, I am sure that the Electoral Commissioner has time to meet her. All I will say is that, under the fixed election dates—which as I recall was introduced by the member for Mitchell as a private member's bill; he may recall—the Premier could go to the Governor and have the writ issued as far out as 55 days from polling day, in which case, two months will not be sufficient. So, just bear that in mind.

Mr HANNA: In response to the debate so far, I would suggest that the principles that I put forward are the correct ones to consider. It is really a very important consideration that parties should be allowed to emerge between two and six months before an election. So, my preferred approach would be that the two-month provision be carried either in this chamber or in the other place, and then we can work out a way that it can work. We can work out a way for the Electoral Commission to be able to do its job and vet and consider objections as quickly as possible. Even if we need to amend other things in some sort of conference between the houses, or further government amendments, I would suggest that that is what we need to do, because it really does seem to me to be working against the democratic process to forbid parties to set up between two and six months before an election, effectively.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Just a question on possible future scenarios that could occur, having been in this place under a number of different governments and a different mix of numbers in the house. This is being based on the two months or six months preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the constitution. There is a provision, however, that a parliament could lose confidence in a government at any time, and it could call an election sooner. It could be on a major issue that a party may like to get up and running on to actually contest that election, not knowing what might happen in the future, long after we have all gone from this place. Does this preclude any party such as that actually being able to establish that?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Again, an excellent question from the member for Chaffey. Let me illustrate the point by reference to an historical example. In 1955, owing to sectarian and other tensions in the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, the Labor government of John Cain Senior fell apart. There was a vote of no confidence in John Cain's government, in which members of the self-styled ALP (Anti-Communist) crossed the floor and voted for a motion of no confidence in John Cain's government, bringing it down and bringing on an early election. In that election—although there was a dispute about who the real Australian Labor Party was—the party led by John Cain ran as the Australian Labor Party and the party led by Barry (who I think was the member for Carlton) ran as the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist).

The election was a triumph for the Liberal Party, and Henry Bolte was able to govern at the head of a Liberal Party government without the need for Country Party support. Most of the remaining Labor seats were held by members loyal to John Cain Senior, but Frank Scully held his seat of Richmond for the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist).

Had these provisions applied, the registered Australian Labor Party would have been that led by John Cain Senior and those candidates would have the Australian Labor Party name on the ballot paper as the registered party and the ALP (Anti-Communist) would have been unregistered, would not have had time to register and, therefore, would not have had their name on the ballot paper.

Of course, there being no registration provisions at the time, neither Labor Party candidates had their name on the ballot paper. The interesting thing is that, subsequently, in a Supreme Court case called Cameron, the Victorian Supreme Court held the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist) to be the legal Australian Labor Party in Victoria.

Mr Hanna: Well, they run the Labor Party now.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Be that as it may, I do not think their victory in the Supreme Court was of much use because, clearly, the ALP (Anti-Communist) would much rather have been the ALP at the time of the 1955 general election. The member for Chaffey is right, and I suspect that if those circumstances were repeated there would be an immediate statement of claim issued in the courts and the true registration would be decided very quickly as a case in the courts, because the breakaway party would not have an opportunity to be registered in the circumstances of an early election. The member for Chaffey's question is an outstanding question and I think I have given the correct answer. There would be an enormous bunfight as to who controlled the registered shell.

New clause negatived.

New clause 10A.

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

Page 9, after line 23—After clause 10 insert:

10A—Amendment of section 40—Order in which applications are to be determined

Section 40—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) If, during the period of six months immediately preceding the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934, an application is received by the Electoral Commissioner for registration of a political party, that application must not be determined until after the general election.

New clause inserted.

Clause 11.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 9, lines 25 to 39 and page 10, lines 1 to 21 [clause 11(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

One of the interesting things about the state of the law, I think at present and certainly under the government proposals, is that one would not be allowed to use a substantial part of the name of an existing political party in setting up a new party. I am not persuaded that that is right. I think if somebody wants to run as Independent Labor or Independent Liberal they should be able to because those descriptions would actually give a very clear indication of what that candidate is about. I think it is a legitimate part of the process for a person to be able to run under such a banner and, hence, the amendment which deletes a government provision.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Can the Attorney please explain whether or not this particular section, 42(3)(iii), only applies to the registration of a political party, and if someone wanted to call themselves, as an unregistered member, an Independent National or an Independent Liberal for the purposes of the election they could still do so?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think the member for Chaffey is right, that all this would do is prevent the name 'Independent Labor' or 'Independent Liberal' being printed on the ballot paper but it would not prevent the person from having 'Independent Labor' or 'Independent Liberal' on his or her election signs or handing out how-to-vote cards to that effect.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Further to that, given that the clause refers to an 'application for the registration of a political party', if an Independent currently has the opportunity to register their nomination for election, not as a party but as a candidate, and they chose 'Independent' and then had the opportunity for five different words after that, could they not still put 'Independent Liberal, Independent Labor, Independent National', because they are not applying to be a registered party, they are just making a nomination as a candidate and not as a member of a political party?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There are two things here. First of all, we are trying to prevent political parties being registered using a key part of the name of a registered political party. You could call yourself the Australian something or other without offending the Australian Labor Party, but if you use the term 'Labor' you would not get registration under our proposal. If you call yourselves 'Liberals for Forests' you would not get registration under our proposal.

Secondly, my intention is that you would not be able to get your name on the ballot paper as 'Independent Labor' or 'Independent Liberal' or 'Independent Greens' because we would forbid the use, after the word 'Independent' of an integral part, a key part, of the name of an existing registered political party.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Just so that I have this straight in my mind, if I am an Independent, I have not registered a party, I am a candidate running in the election and I wanted to register my nomination as an 'Independent National'—I do not belong to the National Party—I would be unable to do that. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right, with this one qualification, that if the National Party consented, in writing, to your running as an Independent National, then you could. So, while a National Party remains validly registered in South Australia, people cannot run for parliament as Independent Nationals, as they will not get that name on the ballot paper unless they have the consent of the National Party. Alternatively, they could forgo the word 'national' on the ballot paper and just run as an Independent but popularise themselves away from the polling booth outside or elsewhere as Independent National to give some idea to electors what orientation they have.

Mr HANNA: There is perhaps some confusion about the difference between two different issues, and I think that I contributed to that confusion. There is the question of the naming of political parties, and that is pertinent to the clause before us now, and there is also the question of the name to be published on the ballot paper. My next amendment, which concerns clause 19, relates to the issue of the name on the ballot paper.

Both issues are under the same umbrella of what we can call ourselves if we are going for election. Personally, I do not see the problem with new parties or Independent candidates being able to appropriate part of the name of existing political parties. I am quite prepared to admit that there needs to be a qualification, that is, it should not be misleading. I will give two examples.

If there was a name for a political party, the 'Real Labor Party', that might be considered misleading and I would not be so comfortable with it. If somebody applied for the name, the 'Independent Labor Party', it would be quite a clear message to voters that a certain set of values was held by that party but, at the same time, there was a clear distancing from the Australian Labor Party. I think the key issue is whether the name is misleading and not whether it appropriates part of the name of an existing political party.

Mrs REDMOND: First of all, I thank the member for Mitchell because the very point I was going to make was that we seemed to be discussing something that was in a different clause, and I wanted to clarify that this clause deals only with the registration.

The CHAIR: We are dealing with an amendment moved by the member for Mitchell.

Mrs REDMOND: I appreciate that, but my question is to the Attorney because I need an answer from the Attorney about clause 1 in order to decide whether to support it.

The CHAIR: I understand, member for Heysen. I just wanted to see who had to listen.

Mrs REDMOND: They all have to listen, Madam Chair. My question relates to the note and the thrust of this clause that will prohibit someone from registering a party using the word 'democrat' and so on. It seems to me that there is something of a problem in the sense that there are liberals who are Liberal Party, and there are people who call themselves liberal because they are liberal. Equally, there is a remarkable number of people in the community who spell the word Labor, l-a-b-o-u-r, and many of them are even members of the Labor Party.

My question is double-barrelled: how do you overcome the problem of someone who considers themselves democratic but not a Democrat or liberal but not a Liberal, and how do you deal with someone who decides that they will call themselves 'Independent Labour' as opposed to 'Independent Labor'? Can the Attorney enlighten me as to how those issues will be dealt with?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In spelling it as 'Labour', you would not get an Independent Labour candidate over the line. I think that will be too close to the registered party name. Similarly, spelling 'liberal' in lower case will not get that Independent candidate over the line either. I think the application of the provision is reasonably clear, but no doubt there will be cases at the margin as this law comes into practice.

I should add that my recollection from history is that the Labor Party changed its name to the spelling 'Labor' in about 1905. The reason we did that is that all things American seemed progressive at the time and, as Labor was a progressive party and did not want to be tied to the apron strings of England, it decided to adopt the American spelling.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, it has distressed me ever since. I am still trying to get over it. I should add as a coda to my assertion that someone running as Independent Labor or Independent Liberal could hand out how-to-vote cards and propaganda, but could not have that designation printed on the ballot paper, that I will be putting up, in clause 39, an amendment which would not allow a person to distribute electoral advertisements or how-to-vote cards that identify a candidate by reference to the registered name of a registered political party, or a composite name or a set of words, without the consent of the party. So, we can stop, if we wish, the distribution outside the polling booth of that kind of material, depending on our attitude to clause 39.

Mrs REDMOND: In response to the last point that the Attorney made by way of coda, does that mean—and I appreciate that it is not really under this clause—that it will be prohibited, for example, for someone to put out publicity about themselves, saying, 'Well, I consider myself to be a very liberal thinker', and deleting the entitlement of the world at large to use the word 'liberal' in its normal context because they happen to be a political candidate?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed, proposed section 112B(3) provides:

Subsection (1) does not prevent the publication of background information, a personal profile, or a declaration of policy, by or in relation to a candidate.

Members may recall, in the 2002 election in the state district of Enfield, Ralph Clarke describing himself as the 'real' Labor candidate, and having a picture of Mike Rann on his principal election leaflet, saying, 'Mike Rann supports me' and, indeed, a picture of me, saying very nice things about Ralph Clarke. This would not really prevent any of that. A candidate could say, 'Look, I'm the real labour candidate' or 'I'm very liberal in my thinking, unlike the Liberal candidate.' That is all ok.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 17:58 the house adjourned until Tuesday 12 May 2009 at 11:00.


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