HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 30 April 2009. Page 2596.)

Clause 11.

Mrs REDMOND: Could I perhaps ask a question? The member for Mitchell has already moved his amendment and we are in discussion regarding the clause. In order to decide whether to support the member for Mitchell, I had been asking a couple of questions of the Attorney-General in relation to the bill.

The question I want to ask him is this. At the moment, we are considering section 42 of the act which deals with the registration of political parties. Subsection (1) provides that after considering objections the Electoral Commissioner must determine the application. Subsection (2) provides that, in certain circumstances, the Electoral Commissioner must refuse the application.

Currently, subsection (3) provides that an application for the registration of a political party may be refused if, in the opinion of the Electoral Commissioner, the name of the party, or the abbreviation of it, might be basically confused with a prominent public body, or so nearly resembles the name of a prominent public body that it should not be allowed to go ahead.

The bill replaces that subsection (3) with a new subsection that provides—in addition to what is already provided in subsection (3)—that the Electoral Commissioner may refuse an application for registration of a political party if the name or the abbreviation or acronym of the name comprises or contains a word or set of words that constitute a distinctive aspect or part of the name of another political party, not being a related political party that is a parliamentary party or a registered political party, or so nearly resembles one of those.

My question to the Attorney-General is this. In subsection (2), which is not amended by this bill, there is already provision to say that the Electoral Commissioner must refuse the registration of a political party where the name or the abbreviation or acronym of the name is such that it would be confused with a parliamentary party or a registered political party or so nearly resembles the name or abbreviation or acronym of a political party.

So, in subsection (2) we already have a provision that the Electoral Commissioner, it seems to me, must refuse the registration in those circumstances. My question is: why, then, without touching that new subsection, is there being put into the new subsection (3) (as proposed by the government and opposed by the member for Mitchell) a provision to say that the Electoral Commissioner may refuse registration of a political party in those circumstances?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. P.L. White): Are you asking the minister or the member for Mitchell?

Mrs REDMOND: As I explained, I am asking the question of the minister because, in order to decide whether to support the member for Mitchell's amendment (and I understand the member for Mitchell's amendment, which is simply to delete that provision), I wanted to clarify with the minister why the provision that the government proposes is worded in the way it is. So, it is a question to the Attorney, notwithstanding that it is the amendment of the member for Mitchell that we are dealing with.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My advice is that our provision in this bill gives the Electoral Commissioner a discretion whereas the current provision does not, so we are leaving it to the Electoral Commissioner's discretion as to whether this prohibition is invoked.

Mr HANNA: I will summarise the arguments that were put last time we were debating my amendment. Essentially, I am negativing the government's amendment because I am happy with the current state of the law. We already have a protection against names being confusing or liable to be mistaken with a party. I think section 42 is adequate in relation to that. The government wants to stop the use of substantial parts or the most significant parts of the names of political parties altogether.

As I have said before, I believe that, if you have something called the liberals for forests party or the 19th century labor party, people will realise it is not the same as the major party to which part of the name relates. As long as there is no confusion I think that should be allowed. Hence the amendment. It is as simple as that. We are probably ready to vote on it.

Amendment negatived.

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

Page 10, lines 22 to 25 [clause 11(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

My amendment is to run with the member for Mitchell's system for filing a registration time limitation. We agree with the principle: we just disagree with the number of months. The member for Mitchell was proposing that the application had to be in two months before the election.

Mr Hanna: Up to two months.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Up to two months. Given that the issuing of the writ can be 55 days out from an election, we do not think that is fair to the Electoral Commissioner to go through the checking process as to the bona fides of the party. We say about six months is fair.

Mr HANNA: The difficulty I have with this amendment is that, notwithstanding the advice of the Electoral Commissioner, I still find it hard to believe—and I say this with respect to the Electoral Commissioner—it could take four months, for example, to check the veracity of a proposal for registration. I understand that electoral commission staff have to check through every name on the list, perhaps 200 names on the list.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And there is the objection process.

Mr HANNA: There is the objection process. I am saying it is so important to allow registration of parties up to close to the election—whatever we judge that to be—that we should then adapt other parts of the law, such as the objection process or even the time for issuing of the writs, so as to allow the registration of parties up to as close as possible to the election. I do not think six months is as close as possible.

I understand the objection to two months, given that the writs can be issued that far out from an election. Frankly, now that we have fixed elections it is probably time to review the provision for the issuing of the writs. It might as well be, say, four Sundays before the election date, or something like that. That could easily be a change without impairing our electoral system whatsoever.

It seems to me that the important thing is to give people a chance to get organised into a party and compete at an election up until a close time, may be two months or three months, before a general election. I understand what the Attorney-General is saying. I still cannot quite grasp how it would take six months for the checking, plus the objection process to carry through. Maybe we need to speed up the objection process so that we can come up with a better compromise, say, four months before an election.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I understand the honourable member's point of view. I go back to what I said last time this bill was before the house. The member for Mitchell had a road to Damascus conversion on the eve of the last state election. He resigned from the Greens party and became an independent supported by Nick Xenophon—and that was his political salvation. He is trying to fashion the Electoral Act so that it allows those road to Damascus conversions on the eve of an election; and, gee, if I were in his situation I would do the same.

I have advice from the Electoral Commissioner that this process will take roughly five months. Let us allow a month for something to go wrong, the real problem, as I see it, with the timing of the application for registration is the one I illustrated in response to the member for Chaffey on the situation that occurred in Victoria in 1955; namely, a parliamentary party split in two on a no confidence motion in the house. The government fell. One element of that party, one half of it, had a very good case that, legally, it was the Australian Labor Party. That was vindicated in the Supreme Court something like six years later, but no good for the election because it did not have the label and therefore—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Exactly; the member for Stuart would remember.

Mrs Redmond: Bob Santamaria of blessed memory.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Bartholomew Augustine Michael Santamaria was never a member of any political party. I had the pleasure to meet him in his North Melbourne premises some years ago.

Mrs Redmond: He certainly had a point of view, Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: He did have a point of view. I will not do my Bob Santamaria impersonation here. Nothing we can do in the Electoral Act will address the circumstances that existed in Victoria in 1955, because, obviously, the writ will be issued within hours of the government's falling. Let us not get too hung up on registration. The biggest advantage that registration gives a political party is that its name goes on the ballot paper, but if a political party is not lucky enough to receive that advantage because it forms too soon before an election, nevertheless it can go back in time and do what every political party did in South Australia until (I think) the 1985 general election; that is, it can publicise the name of its candidates and hand out how-to-vote cards saying, 'If you want to vote for the new party, here is the how-to-vote card for the new party.'

That is all you have to do to overcome it and I do not think that this is a terribly great barrier to entry for a new political party, and barring the dissolution of a governing party and its split into two or three parts on a no-confidence motion, I really do not see the circumstances in which a genuine political party would come into being to contest an election fewer than six months before a general election. After all, thanks to the member for Mitchell's private member's bill amending the constitution, we all know four years in advance when the general election day will be.

The other thing to say is that, even the FREE Party—the Gypsy Jokers' party—is now registered. It is registered. It has all the privileges of registration. I notice that it is putting up a candidate for the House of Assembly called Bear. Now we are not allowed to know apparently—

Mrs Redmond: I know a dog called Bear.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen knows a dog called Bear. No, this is a man called Bear. He is a biker. We are not allowed to know his full name or even what seat he is running for because perhaps there might be some disadvantage for the FREE Party if that became generally known.

Mrs Redmond: It might be Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It might be Croydon. I am happy to be bear hugged in Croydon by the FREE Party, and I would be somewhat disappointed if they did not have a candidate against me in Croydon at the next general election. I do not think these provisions constitute an unconscionable barrier to entry for new parties and therefore, while accepting the system proposed by the member for Mitchell, I cannot agree to a two month lead time.

Mr HANNA: I just wanted to make two quick points. First, the extraordinary circumstances of an election before the usual four years, as the Attorney-General points out, are not really relevant to the debate because, whether it is two months or four months, it will have no bearing—no new party will be able to arise within the period proposed by me or the Attorney.

In relation to the Attorney-General's comments about the last election in the electorate of Mitchell, it is an unfortunate tactic often used by the Attorney to bring in provocative personal barbs to a general debate. The fact that we are debating registration of political parties reveals in itself that the circumstances of my election last time are not relevant because there was no political party which I joined, registered or created in order to be re-elected. We are talking about registration of political parties.

I think that more than two months would be appropriate. I think that six months is too long. It is not that extraordinary for a group of people to arise and want to form a political party six months out from an election. For example, if the government proceeds to build the weir at Pomona (the so-called Wellington weir), that may be six months before the next general election. It may be so upsetting to so many people that they want to form a political party to oppose that. I think that there will be political circumstances where we need to be as generous as possible in allowing people to form political parties. That is the principle. I think we are agreed on the principle. It is just a matter of refining the timing, depending on the practicalities.

Mrs REDMOND: I want some clarity about what the Attorney has been saying, because, as I read it, we have now dealt with the member for Mitchell's amendment to delete subsection (1) from clause 11 of the bill. He failed in that attempt and so we still have subsection (1). The Attorney has informed us that that will give discretion (which does not exist currently) to the Electoral Commissioner in deciding whether or not to register a political party if it has a name which could be confused with an existing political party.

The government now proposes to delete subsection (2) of clause 11, and it appears to me that that was the very clause that the member for Mitchell was complaining about, in the sense that it appears to have the effect that, basically, you are not going to get effective registration within six months of registering and, therefore, within six months of an election you will not be able to form a political party for use in an upcoming election. Is that the effect of that clause?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer is yes.

Mrs REDMOND: Now the government is proposing to delete that clause. The amendment that the Attorney has now moved is to delete the clause that puts in the six months. I just want clarification of the government's position, because I thought I understood its position until I saw that the Attorney has now filed an amendment to delete subclause (2) and leave subclause (1).

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This amendment is consequential upon my first amendment, which was adopted by the committee.

Mrs REDMOND: Will the Attorney explain on what basis it is consequential upon the first amendment—or is the Attorney referring to amendment No. 3 of his amendments 74(2)?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That amendment has been agreed to by the committee.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 12.

Mrs REDMOND: I just want to clarify the nature of the annual return and the inquiries that are going to be made, in a generic sense. As I read the clause (and I am simply seeking from the Attorney confirmation of whether my understanding is correct), once a party gets to whatever figure we finally settle on (and I think we have put aside that clause for the moment, but it is 200), and the commissioner goes through the process of deciding that they are all genuine people who are all registered to vote, and so on, and registers them, that registration really has to be renewed every year by the party. They no longer maintain their entitlement to registration if, having achieved their 200 and got registration—if for instance a couple of them die or move interstate, or whatever—

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

Mrs REDMOND: —or resign, once they drop below 200, they no longer have the entitlement to registration. So, effectively, although there might not be any fee attaching to it, it is a new registration process each year, which may be made somewhat simpler because there will be a capacity, I would assume, to tick off (and I mean put a tick beside, not tick off in the more colloquial sense) those people who are clearly still alive, still residing at the same address and still members of the party, according to the party's return. I just want to get some clarity about how the Attorney envisages it will work. It looks to me as though each year every party will have to satisfy the Electoral Commissioner again of that threshold of 200 members.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is a good question, member for Heysen. Generally, political parties that have members of parliament can obtain registration on that basis. So, they do not need to keep sending in 150 names and addresses.

Mrs Redmond: Let's imagine the Democrats.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I was going to say, let us imagine the Democrats. Let us imagine a political party which, through Sandra Kanck and David Winderlich, is jumping up and down demanding an independent commission against corruption. And let us imagine that perhaps the greatest act of corruption one can commit in any society is to abuse the constitution and the Electoral Act and get a member of parliament in on a casual vacancy where there is no legal entitlement to do it. Let us imagine that. Just fancy that, Madam Chair.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: A most serious matter!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: A most serious matter, as the member for Stuart said, which is why I braved the censure of so many of my colleagues on both sides to raise the possibility at the joint sitting. Let us just imagine that.

Mr Goldsworthy: He hates it!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I do love it. This provision is designed to say that, if you are a registered party and you do not have a member of parliament, then to maintain the advantages—the status—of continuing registration, you should annually show that you have 150 members.

Mrs Redmond: Now it will be 200.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And now 200, if my provision clears the other house. But if you are the Democrats and you are used to having up to three members of parliament and suddenly you lose the lot and you are back on relying for your registration on 150 names and addresses, you get a bit of a shock—have you still got 150?

Apparently, Aussie Kanck in his statutory declaration to the Electoral Commissioner could only say that to the best of his knowledge he had 150 members. There is a let-out, isn't it? Maybe he did not have 150 members but to the best of his knowledge he had 150.

It seems to me you either have 150 or you do not, and you go to the records of the political party of which you are the registered officer and have a good look and match them to the electoral roll. As far as I know, the Croydon sub-branch of the Australian Labor Party has more than 150 members and I know it because I can match them to the electoral roll.

Mr Goldsworthy: Is that all you have in your electorate?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 150 members, yes. A bit over 150.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Mitchell interjects mischievously, 'Enough for only three delegates.' We are entitled to four, and if there was not a cap on delegations we would have more than four because we are historically the biggest sub-branch in the great Australian Labor Party, South Australian branch.

I think it is appropriate that, where a political party does not have a parliamentary representative, it be required annually to certify that it has 150 or 200 members. It is a reasonable requirement. That deals with these bogus political parties that in fact do not have anywhere near 150 or 200 members—that did on one occasion in their history but now do not. It is not a tremendously burdensome requirement for them to annually stump up evidence of 150 or 200 members. I do not think I am being unreasonable.

Mr PISONI: I seek some further clarification. Perhaps the Attorney could explain the difference between what happened in filling the Democrats' casual vacancy and filling the Xenophon casual vacancy. If it is important that there be proof of party membership for determining eligibility of a casual vacancy, my understanding is that Nick Xenophon was an Independent and was not a party member, and if the Hon. Sandra Kanck had actually resigned from the party before she had resigned from parliament would she have then been able to appoint somebody of her choice, as Mr Xenophon did? Perhaps the minister could explain how that might work.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is a good question from the member for Unley. I congratulate him on Sturt's prevailing by more than 10 goals over Woodville West Torrens at Woodville on Saturday. The Labor candidate for Unley, Vanessa Vartto, had a tremendous time at Woodville Oval meeting so many Sturt supporters, who travelled (hundreds of them) to Woodville Oval to see their team triumph and Sturt full forward Brant Chambers kick 11 goals, a career high for him in a single match.

The question is a good one. If Sandra Kanck left the parliament, leaving the Democrats without a parliamentary representative or 150 members—and I have to say I think that is the truth of the situation—then her vacancy would have been treated like an Independent's vacancy and the parliament, in a joint sitting, would have determined who was the appropriate person to replace Sandra Kanck in those circumstances, as it did with Nick Xenophon's vacancy, because Nick Xenophon's having resigned as an Independent, there is no system that guides the joint sitting of parliament on how to replace Nick Xenophon. There is no system, is there? So, the parliament has discretion on whom to appoint to replace an Independent, as occurred with Nick Xenophon and as I say was the true legal situation upon Sandra Kanck's resignation.

It is not as if we did not know the difficulty of the circumstances that could face this system. I recall when Australians who were interested in politics were very angry when the Liberal-dominated Senate in 1975 replaced Labor's Lionel Murphy with alderman—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, the member for Unley is not recalling correctly because I am talking about a New South Wales casual vacancy in the Senate.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right. Exactly. The member for Stuart remembers correctly what the member for Unley is not remembering correctly. The Liberal-dominated Senate replaced Senator Lionel Murphy, upon his resignation to take a vacancy on the High Court, with the mayor, I think he was called alderman, Cleaver Bunton, of Albury, who was not a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Secondly, upon the death—and it is not that Bert Milliner had much choice in living or dying, but upon his death—I am sorry, not the Liberal-dominated Senate, the New South Wales parliament. Tom Lewis was the Premier, the member for Wollondilly. It was not the Liberal-dominated Senate, but the Liberal government of New South Wales that replaced Labor's Lionel Murphy with alderman Cleaver Bunton of Albury, who was not a member of the Australian Labor Party. Upon the death of Bert Milliner, a Labor senator from Queensland, the Queensland National Party government (I think it was then the Country Party government) replaced Bert Milliner with Albert Patrick Field—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: A French polisher.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —a French polisher and, I think, a member of the Federated Furnishing Trade Society and, until that point, a member of the Australian Labor Party but not the nominee of the Australian Labor Party.

So, when we were discussing, in the aftermath of Malcolm Fraser's smashing electoral victory of 1975, whether to put a clause in the Australian constitution to stop this abuse of the casual vacancy clause, I remember John Gorton speaking at the Australian National University on the need for such a clause, which was subsequently put into the constitution at the instigation of the Fraser Liberal government at a referendum held in 1977.

As a smart aleck 17 year old undergraduate, I asked John Gorton, 'You advocate this provision, but what is going to happen when the senator departed is not a member of a political party or, in the case of Senator Steele Hall from South Australia, is a member of a political party that no longer exists?'

There is a difficulty, and the member for Unley identifies it. We have been aware of the problem for 34 years, and there is no simple way of overcoming it. Where the political party still exists, obviously the person should be the nominee of that political party. The member for Mitchell is proposing bequeathing seats in parliament to his heirs and successors according to law. I believe the member for Mitchell has children, so perhaps he will be able to leave the state district of Mitchell to one of them—although, which one would we choose?

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Go with the eldest—eldest male or just eldest? The member for Unley is right. Yes, there is a problem. My contention is that, upon the departure of Sandra Kanck, the Democrats abused both the constitution and the Electoral Act to get David Winderlich up as the replacement. That is my opinion. I wonder whether that is something that an independent commission against corruption would look at if we had one, because I can think of no greater corrupt activity than perverting the constitution. Be that as it may, Mr Winderlich is there now, and whether he got there as a registered political parliamentary replacement or whether in fact he should have been chosen as an Independent, we will never know. He is there now; we have to cop it.

Mr PISONI: The section which refers to the Electoral Commissioner states:

...at any time by notice in writing require a registered officer of a registered political party to provide such information as specified in the notice for the purpose of determining whether the party is still eligible to be registered under this part.

Can the Attorney give me an example of the intention of that, that is, when the Electoral Commissioner may in fact use that particular part of the bill and whether there have been situations in the past when having that requirement was necessary but it was unable to be used because it was not available?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My view is that political parties are given the privilege of registration under the Electoral Act, and it is entirely in order for the Electoral Commissioner, on a proper substratum of fact, such as a credible allegation, to find that a political party is not complying with the act—

Mrs Redmond: To test the veracity.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —to test the veracity—as the member for Heysen quite correctly says; she gives the member for Unley his answer—of elements of the party's registration. It seems to me a reasonable provision.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: My concern in relation to these particular matters is that it is well and good to create a situation where political parties must be registered, but one of the hallmarks of a democracy is that people ought to be able to organise themselves into committees or groups to support a person to run for parliament. That system has operated around Australia. You can get a group of concerned citizens—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Without registration.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That is correct, but my real concern is that you must be very careful about putting too many restrictions on the ability of people to organise themselves into political parties, because in a democracy people should be able to have freedom of assembly. It is terribly important. Let us be honest. When I first came into this place the then deputy premier said to me, 'If in doubt, back the party. You won't be by yourself.' That was very good advice, and the same goes—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And the acting deputy premier was Des Corcoran?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That is correct. If you are standing for parliament as an individual, it could be a fairly lonely sort of exercise, but if you can organise a group of people around you, you ought to be able to do it freely, without threats or intimidation and without any sort of restriction, in my view, as long as you are not acting illegally. These sorts of provisions that we have here are well and good today but my concern is that they can never be used to stop a group of law-abiding citizens forming themselves into an association to sponsor someone for parliament. That is my concern.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Stuart is right, and I support his point of view. That is why, under the current Electoral Act, people who are not law-abiding citizens, namely, a group of people associated with the Gypsy Jokers outlaw motorcycle gang, have been able to form a political party in South Australia—called the FREE Party—to announce a candidate for parliament who will not even give his real name because we might find out about his record.

So, not only do we protect the rights in South Australia of law-abiding citizens but we are protecting the rights of some citizens who are not law abiding, according to the South Australia Police. So, I think we are going a long way in this bill to safeguard the rights of South Australians, and the FREE Party has just exercised that right to the nth degree. Not only that, I say to the member for Stuart, the FREE Party's registered officer will now be able to access the up-to-date Electoral Roll for all of South Australia. How is that for democracy and freedom? I think we are bending over backwards in South Australia to provide freedom and democracy.

All this provision says is that, if you are going to take the advantages of registration, which is to have the name of your party on the ballot paper and your registered officer to get updates of the Electoral Roll for the whole state, you should maintain 150 or 200 bona fide members when called upon by the Electoral Commissioner, and there is no sign in the past that the Electoral Commissioner has exercised this requirement in an onerous way.

What I would say to the committee and to the member for Stuart is that, if you do not maintain registration, the principal penalty on you is that you will not be able to avail yourself of the name of your political party on the ballot paper—and for 15 years, the member for Stuart stood for parliament without the Liberal Party name on the ballot paper next to his name. The people of the state district of Eyre found their way on the ballot paper to the name 'Gunn, Graham McDonald' and placed the number 1 next to his name in sufficient numbers for him to be re-elected to this place over and over again.

So, it is hardly an impediment to running for parliament and to organising a political party not to be registered. There is nothing in the bill currently before the parliament that in any way impinges on the freedom or democracy of South Australians and their right to form associations for the purposes of sending people to parliament. Indeed, we are making it easier for them. In the case of the FREE Party, a party of very dubious provenance—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Scoundrels.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Scoundrels, as the member for Stuart says—we are allowing them to put their party name on the ballot paper, and we are giving them the up-to-date electoral roll for the entire state of South Australia. I reckon some of those other outlaw motorcycle gangs are going to be pretty envious of the Gypsy Jokers.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed; or take over the existing one.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mrs REDMOND: I have two distinct questions on clause 14, and I will ask them separately. The first concerns new section 46A—False statements. I note that the maximum penalty for a person who, in furnishing information, makes a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular is guilty of an offence, and there is quite a heavy maximum penalty of $5,000. I would think that is a relatively—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is not exactly at the higher end of the range.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney says that it is not exactly the higher end of the range. However, for what is a relatively simple matter, I think it is at the higher end of the range for this type of offence in the sense of registration of a political party and so on. However, we can perhaps agree to disagree about that, Attorney. My question is: would the Attorney consider, between the houses, a proposal to insert into that section the word 'knowingly' at the end of the first line so that it would read, 'A person who, in furnishing information for the purposes of this part, knowingly makes a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular is guilty of an offence'? It seems that that would more thoroughly capture the intention of what I am sure the Attorney is trying to achieve.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Verily, verily it would. Not between the houses: I am willing to accept it here and now and I invite the member for Heysen to move it.

Mrs REDMOND: I move:

Page 11, line 13—After the words 'of this Part' insert 'knowingly'

It would then read, 'A person who, in furnishing information for the purposes of this part, knowingly makes a statement that it is false or misleading in a particular, is guilty of an offence'.

Amendment carried.

Mrs REDMOND: My other question on this clause relates to the other proposal, namely section 46B—Membership information to be confidential. I think I understand the intention of the clause, and I am confident that my understanding would be at one with the intention of the Attorney on this clause. My understanding is that the idea is that, when the proposed political party seeks registration, it nominates the various 200 people and they are tested and found to be correct.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And checked against the electoral roll.

Mrs REDMOND: Exactly. So, everything is terrific, the Electoral Commissioner registers that party. The information as to who those party members are is intended to be kept confidential—no problem with that—and subsection (2) states:

Subsection (1) does not prevent the Electoral Commissioner providing information to a prescribed person or body or a person or body of a prescribed class (if any) for purposes connected with the operation or administration of this Act.

My question relates to that subsection of the clause. My assumption is that you intend that, if the Liberal Party (or any other party) needed to provide its membership numbers for registration, an officer or the director of that party would be able to get the details from the Electoral Commissioner. I want to know whether it is intended that the Electoral Commissioner could supply to your good self the details of, for instance, the Democrats. If you had a suspicion—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, someone has already done that.

Mrs REDMOND: But if you had a suspicion that in the future some fictional group known as the Australian Democrats would seek registration because they no longer had an elected representative—and, therefore, they were not a recognised party by virtue of an elected representative—and would nominate the required 200 people, the Electoral Commissioner would check their bona fides, find them to be not wanting and register the party. My interpretation of subsection (2) is that, within the party, those people could get information but you would not be able to get it. I want to clarify whether that is the intention of it, because it does not actually say that. It just says a prescribed class. Perhaps you could expand on what is intended by 'to be prescribed'.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen's question is a fair one. No, the minister responsible for the Electoral Act would not be a prescribed person. What we are thinking of there is supplying the names and addresses back to the registered party itself, because the situation might be that a minor party gets registered many years previously—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. The registered officer absconds with the money—and it has been known to happen—and the membership list, and the party wants to know who its members are, or the party is challenged as to whether it has 200 bona fide members. To help track them down, its previous list is supplied to it. Also, they might be supplied to the Government Investigations Unit or the Crown Solicitor's Office, if it is believed the party is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Electoral Commissioner and the public, so that this matter can be properly investigated.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 11:00.


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