HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (PUBLICATION OF ELECTORAL MATERIAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2010.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:02): I rise to speak on this bill, which was introduced by the Attorney-General—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I can hear the former attorney-general bleating already. The bill was introduced by the new Attorney-General in the government, and it is now for consideration and debate. Essentially, this bill was introduced to amend the Electoral Act to deal with two specific issues. I summarise those as the circumstances in which a candidate can publish certain matter during the course of the election, and it purports to deal with what has been known as the 'dodgy how-to-vote card' issue to ensure that, in future elections, a penalty will be imposed in the event that anyone attempted to do so. This is to legislate with respect to a practice which, the government is well aware, is unacceptable and which it needs, it appears, to have legislation to make sure that it does the right thing.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Some further comment will be made about that, but the second aspect deals essentially with internet authorisations and the obligation for those to be imposed. It became a complete farce after statements were made by the former attorney-general in the early part of the election campaign during which he purported to interpret what would be required at the internet level, with particular reference to Facebook and other social sites, and his inconsistent expectation (the opposition says) with what had been disclosed by the Electoral Commissioner during briefings, as well as with commitments made by minister Holloway in another place and about which the government, again during the election campaign, was caught out, and it ultimately conceded by using the regulation power to withdraw from the insistence thereof, and I will refer to that shortly.

The opposition's position on this matter is that the bill should be referred to the newly established Select Committee on Matters Related to the General Election of 20 March 2010. The opposition takes the view that this should be referred, but that is not to say that we are not supportive of the intent of the government now to remedy its own misconduct by dealing with this issue, and we want to ensure that it is done properly and, also, comprehensively, in a circumstance where the government is clearly attempting to quarantine any further investigation as to the conduct of the Australian Labor Party during the recent past election.

Its way of doing this, of course, is to simply say to the people of South Australia, 'Look, we knew we did wrong, and we are going to amend that and produce the legislation to remedy that'; narrow it to those issues and then expect the public to believe that that is the extent of its misconduct, to quarantine itself against further criticism. It will then to try to argue to the people of South Australia that, if we do not immediately support the passage of this bill, the opposition are squawking about this bill and they are not supporting it right here when they have an opportunity to do so.'

The reason for that is simply that we are not satisfied this is the extent of the misconduct. Quite obviously, the Australian Labor Party is desperate to do this. Not only is that our assertion, but the very conduct of the government, in coming in with this bill after there had been a motion passed for the establishment of the select committee, only corroborates exactly what we are saying, that is, the government is attempting to narrow the issues of misconduct during the campaign to what it has been caught out on only, and suggest that any delay in this will now be our fault.

So I want to make it quite clear that the select committee motion had been in place well before the introduction of this bill, and I want to briefly remind members that, not only was there disclosure of this conduct during the course of the campaign and, indeed, on the day of the election (20 March 2010), but also there was public outcry subsequent to this occurring and, indeed, subsequent to hearing the Electoral Commissioner's finding on the complaint about this matter.

There was such public outcry in the general media that there was a call by minor parties, including the Family First Party, who were in support of the Liberals' position, that we must have an inquiry into the conduct of activities during the election, and it must happen quickly and it must have a term of reference that is sufficiently narrow to ensure it can occur quickly. The charter of that committee, as supported in the Legislative Council by the passing of the motion, was very clear: it had to be narrow enough to be able to be dealt with quickly but with sufficient investigative parameters to ensure that it was comprehensive enough to deal with the conduct of any of the parties during the election campaign. I want to place on the record the select committee's charter. It states:

A select committee of the Legislative Council of South Australia has been established to inquire and report upon—

(a) the use of bogus how-to-vote cards and other election day material to mislead voters and measures that may be necessary to ensure that electors are not misled;

(b) provision of voting services including voting by post, services to people with disabilities and residents of declared institutions;

(c) the integrity of the roll, including the identification of voters presenting and measures for subsequent verification; and

(d) management of the election by the Electoral Commission, including the powers and resources available to the commission.

As members would be aware, the committee has been established, invitations to make submissions have been called for, and later this week on 2 July submissions are to be presented to the committee secretary, Mr Guy Dickson. I do not doubt for one moment that they are flooding in because, although again the government's attempt is to try to narrow this issue to what it has been caught out on, clearly the parliament through the Legislative Council has identified a lot of other areas of concern that need to be dealt with and cleared up.

One of the reasons it is very important is that members will be aware that the Electoral Commissioner is also responsible here in South Australia for the supervision of elections at local government level. We obviously are about to embark on a period of campaigns for, ultimately, an election in November this year, which is only a few months away, and campaigns will start to be very active at local government level, which the Electoral Commissioner has the jurisdiction to monitor and supervise. Therefore, it is important that we sort out any of these issues.

This select committee inquiry covers the use of bogus how-to-vote cards, which is a principal aspect—in fact, one of only two aspects—of this bill, so it is fair to say that the presentation by the government in this bill covers one of the aspects of the inquiry. But the government got this wrong back when it made amendments to the Electoral Act. The government mucked it up then. Of course, they try to blame us by stating that our amendments were the problem and that amendments made in the upper house, which they ultimately acceded to, were our fault. But they are the government, and when that bill came back down to the lower house they nodded. That was their issue. They presented the amendments and they have thrown them back here without any proper inquiry.

There has been no indication in the very brief contribution made by the Attorney-General as to who he has consulted on this, whether in fact he has any legal or Crown Law advice on whether this rare insertion of a provision in the bill will remedy the problem or not—nothing! There was just a two paragraph submission presented to us with this bill. We certainly are not satisfied. We say the government mucked it up in the first place. It attempted to push this through with a whole lot of other reforms under the Electoral Act, which it has mucked up. We want it remedied, but we want it remedied properly.

It is wrong for the government to come in here and make an assertion that, if there is a delay of a few months by having an inquiry on this matter, that is somehow our fault, and not support our bona fides in supporting an inquiry, when, in reality, the government knows that this conduct was wrong during the election campaign. It wants to try to get the people of South Australia to believe that they are capable of doing it again and need to be in some way directed by a change of law to know what is the right and decent thing to do, to know that this was unacceptable behaviour. We say that it should be culpable and it should have been acted upon by the Electoral Commissioner during the campaign.

In relation to the bogus how-to-vote card issue, and for the purposes of the record for those who might follow this debate, this relates to the Australian Labor Party's use of how-to-vote cards, we say, to try to mislead electors on 20 March. Essentially, they dressed up Labor Party officials, supporters, members, sympathisers or people who were sucked in—I am not sure—people who volunteered or maybe were paid—in any event, people committed to the Labor cause—with T-shirts that were emblazoned with the Family First slogan. They distributed how-to-vote cards which also bore the Family First slogan but which directed preferences contrary to what the Family First party had on its how-to-vote cards.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Just like Brokey did in 2006.

The SPEAKER: Order! One speaker at a time.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the day these fake how-to-vote cards were distributed, they had in small print the authorisation by M. Brown. Members of political parties may be well aware that he is Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, but poor old average people in the general community do not know that. These how-to-vote cards were distributed in some state electorates, in particular, Morialta, Mawson, Light—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to standing order 131 in relation to the member for Croydon.

The SPEAKER: The member for Croydon is very vocal this morning, but I do not uphold the point of order. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: After it was clear that these cards had been distributed in the circumstances I have described and a complaint was made to the Electoral Commissioner, I am advised that on election day she gave an oral assessment of the circumstances, claiming that she did not consider there was a breach of the Electoral Act by virtue of this distribution on the day. Subsequently, she dealt with the matter in writing.

In a letter of 15 April 2010 the Electoral Commissioner (Kay Mousley) responds to the formal complaint by the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division). The letter states:

I refer to your clients' complaint of 9 April 2010 regarding material published and distributed by the Australian Labor Party in the electorates of Morialta, Mawson, Light and Hartley on polling day in the 2010 State election.

I have considered the complaint and whether it discloses an offence under the Electoral Act 1985 ('the act'), in particular whether an offence under sections 111, 112B and 113 of the Act has been committed.

After closely considering the material you have provided to me, I am not satisfied that any offence has been committed under these provisions of the Act.

Section 112B

An offence is committed under section 112B(1) of the Act if a person publishes or distributes an electoral advertisement or a how-to-vote card that identifies a candidate by reference (relevantly) to the registered name of the registered political party, unless either the candidate is endorsed by the relevant registered political party (section 112B(1)(c)) or the relevant registered political party has consented to the use of the relevant name (section 112B(1)(d)).

I am satisfied that the material that is the subject of the complaint constitutes electoral advertisements or how-to-vote cards and that the material identifies candidates by reference to the registered name of a registered political party. I am also satisfied that each candidate that is so referred to is the endorsed candidate of the relevant registered political party. As a result, section 112B(1)(c) is met.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that no offence was committed under section 112B of the Act.

Sections 111 and 113

An offence is committed under section 111 of the Act where a person hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, or of a right or duty under the Act.

An offence is committed under section 113(2) of the Act if an electoral advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.

I understand your clients to be asserting that the material published and distributed by the Australian Labor Party in the electorates of Morialta, Mawson, Light and Hartley would have given voters the impression that the material was published by or on behalf of the Family First Party and was the Family First Party's recommendation to voters as to whom they should give their second preference in those electorates. I understand this assertion to be the crux of your clients' submission that section 111 and 113 of the Act was breached.

I am not satisfied that the material is capable of bearing the interpretation that is asserted in your clients' complaint. In my opinion, a reasonable reader of the material would understand that the material was not distributed by or on behalf of the Family First Party but that it was distributed by or on behalf of the Australian Labor Party as that Party's recommendation to voters as to whom they should give their second preference. In forming this opinion, I have taken into account the content, language and tone of the material and, in particular:

that the recommendation to '[p]reference someone who shares your values, preference Labor' is likely, because of its tone, to appear to the reasonable reader to have been more probably made by the Australian Labor Party than the Family First party;

the marked differences in appearance between this material and the Family First how-to-vote cards; and

that the material states explicitly that it is' authorised…for the Australian Labor Party'.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that sections 111 and 113 of the Act have been breached by the material.

Yours sincerely,

K Mousley

Electoral Commissioner

That is the full extent of the letter, and I want it all to be on the record.

I would like to make the following comments. First, Family First itself—on the face of it, the first victims of this dodgy practice by the Australian Labor Party on 20 March—says that not only are they without authorisation but, yes, they have also used their slogan, they have breached that, and they are very strongly taking objection to that.

I do not quite understand—and this is why it is important that we have an inquiry—how the Electoral Commissioner herself is able to make an assessment on the tone of a piece of paper and the statement in it, nor do I have anything from this correspondence which identifies the basis upon which she makes the finding that the appearance of the dodgy material was likely to give a reasonable reader the impression that it had come from the Labor Party and not Family First. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever disclosed in this correspondence.

My second comments relate to the marked difference in appearance of the dodgy material and the Family First material. When a voter comes along to the polling booth and picks up these dodgy how-to-vote cards from the dodgy Labor Party official who is handing them out, and they give the impression, and the prospective voter forms the view, that they have collected the Family First material, why on earth would the voter go along and try to find another Family First official to get the correct, authentic, original material approved by Family First if they believed they already had it from Family First?

How would the voter possibly be in a position to receive both on the day and make the assessment—in the clear light of day and subsequent to the event—that the Electoral Commissioner does? She pulls together these two pieces of material—the real ones and the dodgy ones—and says that there is a difference, and she notes that there is a marked difference. How would the reasonable, prospective voter be in a position to make that assessment at the time? In any event, the opposition does not accept the finding of the Electoral Commissioner that in fact there were marked differences—even when they were put side by side—that would readily give a reasonable reader the impression that it was an Australian Labor Party piece of material.

The final point the Electoral Commissioner relies upon is the claim that the material is explicitly authorised for the Australian Labor Party. Well, we have a whole lot of laws about authorisations and a whole lot of laws about disclosing all sorts of things in fine print. Let me give an example: we have laws that say that an airline carrier must disclose to its passengers, on every ticket issued, information about what their obligations are in terms of not carrying illegal product or weapons and the like on aircraft, what amount of baggage they can carry, their conduct, their acceptance of the ticket price, all sorts of things.

All of that has to be disclosed to the passenger every time the passenger has an exchange of contract with the airline carrier. If members look on the back of any of their airline tickets—that is, if they still have them, because we often now just go to the counter, show our driver's licence and get on the plane—they will see all those explicit obligations that the passenger accepts on entering the aircraft and subsequently undertakes to do or not do. But how many of you read it? How many people can honestly say that they have said, 'I have read all the small print and consciously made a decision to purchase a ticket to travel on that particular aircraft?'

Obviously, in the case of the prospective voter, who enters the polling booth area and picks up the dodgy how-to-vote card, believing that it is a Family First vote card, why would they then, having formed that belief, read the fine print at the bottom, which says, 'Authorised by M. Brown, Australian Labor Party?' Of course, they do not do that. They pick up the how-to-vote card, having worked out themselves which party is their preferred preference. Believing they have picked up a Family First how-to-vote card, they walk into the polling booth to vote and they have the option then to follow that how-to-vote card if they so wish. I ask members: how many of you have ever read the authorisation on the bottom of the how-to-vote cards that you have picked up as you have walked into a polling booth?

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, we have one exception, of course, and that would be the member for Croydon, who is an exception in every way, no doubt about that. We can never regulate for stupidity or for the eccentrics of the world. It is absurd, the opposition suggests, that the tiny fine print on the bottom of a how-to-vote card has alerted the prospective voter that it is actually an Australian Labor Party how-to-vote card and that it had been authorised by the Labor Party.

Some voters going into the polling booth who knew about this tactic of the Labor Party may well have been alert to what was going to happen there and thought, 'Well, I'm going to go along and pick up one of these cards'—but they were already in on the secret. What we are talking about is the prospective voter who goes into the polling booth, having made the decision that it is likely they want to support the Family First Party, and they are told on a piece of paper issued by the Labor Party in disguise the best way to do that.

That is a dodgy practice, even though, after the election, Michael Brown, the Secretary of the Labor Party, gave a clear indication that he would do it again. I note that the Premier has distanced himself from the practice. He has claimed that he did not know anything about it at all, which I find completely unbelievable.

Mr Griffiths: He didn't know about the Adelaide Oval.

Ms CHAPMAN: He didn't know about all sorts of things. However, that is the position. Some Labor Party candidates have publicly said that they had that practice in their electorate but that they would not do it again. This practice was carried out in the electorate of the member for Mawson, who was the candidate and sitting member for that electorate. At the time of the declaration of the poll, he publicly indicated that he considered this was a practice he would not participate in again in the future. Good on him for recognising, at the very least, post the event, that he would not participate in that practice again. There is a question about why he would sign up to that practice in the first place if he knew in his heart that it was wrong.

I give credit now to the member for Bright, who was also an Australian Labor Party candidate during the election that is the subject of this bill. She publicly stated that she had been offered the opportunity to have this dodgy practice within her electorate and she declined it, and I give her credit for that. She knew full well that this was an unacceptable practice, and she was prepared to reject it and to fight the election without the use and support of that crutch and devious way to win the election. I give credit to her for that, because she said, 'No, I'm not going to accept it,' even though she would have known, during the lead-up to the election, that she would be under some pressure in respect of that vote and that she may well have lost her seat, given the public indication that there was a swing to the opposition and that she was one of those who would be at risk.

Clearly, at the end of the election campaign and final completion of scrutineering of the votes in the seat of Bright, it was a pretty longwinded and, no doubt, nerve-racking exercise for the member, as I know it was for our candidate, Maria Kourtesis, and I am sure that, for some of the others who had genuinely participated in that electorate in the election, that ultimate decision was heartbreaking. To her credit, the member for Bright had taken that risk in the full knowledge that she was one of the vulnerable candidates, in the end winning by a only few hundred votes out of the 23,000-odd within her electorate. Good on her for acknowledging that.

What is incredible to me is that not only was the Australian Labor Party, in the knowledge that this practice was clearly unacceptable, so desperate to try to retain office and used this practice but it was also on full alert that some of its own people refused to participate in its use, even people like the member for Bright, who were at risk and yet were prepared to say no.

With Michael Brown and the Australian Labor Party, I include the Premier in this as the parliamentary head of the Australian Labor Party and who, of course, is well experienced, not only as a parliamentarian but also as the federal president of the Australian Labor Party. If the Premier does not know what the rules are in the Australian Labor Party and in elections, then who would? He is a man who has been around for 30 years in Australian politics, who maintains the position as head of the Labor Party in South Australia and who has been federal president of the Australian Labor Party.

The Premier knew what the rules were and the party knew what the rules were. Michael Brown ultimately consented to his name being put on the dodgy how-to-vote cards in the full knowledge that at least one member who was in a vulnerable position had said, 'No. I reject the use of that practice in my electorate. If I am not the member for Bright, so be it, but I reject that being used. It is an unsatisfactory practice that I will not participate in.'

We need to properly investigate this matter and make sure that we get it right as a parliament. We need to make sure that, in the government's rolling over on what was inadequate law, as the Electoral Commissioner says, we actually get it right so that she gets a very clear legislative message about what her obligation is in the interpretation of breaches of the act for such reprehensible conduct.

The second matter is internet authorisations. Much has been said when we debated this matter under the Electoral Act reforms in 2009. I will place on the record the opposition's position. Again, for members' benefit and those reading these debates, this was the inclusion in the Electoral Act—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —that, in addition to authorisations on printed material, there be a requisite authorisation on the publication of material on an electronic medium. The argument of the government was that in this day and age we have use of electronic media, including websites, which publish material that, clearly, would have some influence relating to the support or otherwise of a political party or candidate—Independent included—and that, because those media are so readily available, it is rather a nonsense to require authorisation on a printed piece of material but not on that which is published and distributed electronically.

When the matter came to the opposition for briefing, the Electoral Commissioner attended, in addition to the bevy of people who were sent along from the Attorney-General's office, who generally ably assisted with advice on the amendments proposed. I attended the last of these briefings on behalf of the opposition. This issue was raised because there had been a change of representatives on attorney-general matters for the opposition, and it became my responsibility to attend to get a full briefing on the bill and to make sure that, where possible, as we had indicated, we would support the passage of the bill, because we already supported much of it.

In fact, a number of its aspects had been the subject of inquiry and investigation over a number of years, and a number of aspects needed to be looked at, and we were supporting the government on them. There were a number of very significant aspects that we opposed, about which we had had significant debate. My predecessor as spokesperson (now leader, the member for Heysen) had undertaken those debates. So, at this briefing, which I attended, along with representatives of the former attorney-general's office and the Electoral Commissioner, this particular amendment was the subject of discussion. We indicated, as the opposition, that in principle we supported electronically published material, for example, on websites coming under this umbrella.

We discussed this specifically, because websites, for example, of members of parliament, which we particularly looked at, on which material could be published before and during an election campaign, we accepted could reasonably be included—there is not much point in us having to have authorisation for what we put out on the street. In fact, on the day we discussed with the Electoral Commissioner the practical implementation of how we would address material that had been published or placed on our websites well prior to an election campaign, and which stayed on it. Was it going to be necessary, with this amendment, to trawl back through everything that is published on our websites and make sure that we added authorisations? The Electoral Commissioner's answer—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: —notwithstanding the absurd interruptions by the member for Croydon—was not no. Her answer to that question was that she agreed that that would be impractical, and that, when she considered the drafting of the regulations to go with this, she would appreciate the concern we had raised and look at it in the drafting of her regulations.

Some would argue that, if she excluded everything prior to the issuing of the writs that had been published on the internet, if its continued publication meant that you avoided an authorisation, of course, every effort would be made, say, 40 days before an election—because we now have a fixed date—for everyone to download onto their websites everything that they wanted to publish and therefore be excluded from being caught. Again, this was a very practical example given by the opposition where we conceded to the principle, but where the practical implication would need a lot of work on it to make sure that we did not produce the absurd; and that was important.

During the course of the briefing we also touched upon other electronic media in a general sense. We did not specifically ask whether this requires an approval on Twitter, or whether this requires an approval on Facebook, that any poor person, who is not even interested in politics, who has Facebook, who hears something on the news, makes some comment about how hopeless the Premier is, or whatever, needs to put an authorisation on it, yet they would not even know what the Electoral Act says nor care. Would they be caught under that?

None of that was discussed but what was indicated to us was that under 'other electronic publication' the electronic publications of newspapers and media outlets was an aspect which was discussed in that briefing. There was no mention of Twitter, Facebook or the social page interaction that became clear during the course of the election, which became an absolute farce.

The Electoral Commissioner had clearly indicated to us that her drafting of what would be the interpretation of the applicability of this clause would be read down. We were given this very clear indication.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, that's right. Read down. Exactly right.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Subsequently, in the debates in the other place when this issue became alive again, minister Holloway gave a very clear commitment that this would not apply to social websites. What happened then? On the eve of the election proper—if I can say that, by mid-February we were into the lead up to the election proper—the former attorney-general issues the edict about what is to actually apply—and it covers everything.

Not surprisingly, the public were outraged. The media outlets were outraged, and the consequence was that the former attorney-general was called in to answer, via media outlets, questions as to what on earth was going on. We had the undertaking by minister Holloway and the briefing from the Electoral Commissioner and now we had the former attorney-general, on the eve of the election campaign, saying that it was going to apply across the board and expecting authorisations on everything. He publicly confirmed that, of course, and it was clear to us then, in opposition, that it was always the intention of the former attorney-general to bring to account anyone who dared to issue a statement or publication in any form whatsoever, in this state, that was critical of his party or the government.

The reason that was crystal clear to us was because one of the people who came forward during the course of this public debate and outrage claimed that he was the anonymous party who had published a criticism and had been referred to by the former attorney-general as someone who did not exist at all. It was clear to the opposition when this person came forward and said, 'Here I am; I actually exist; I made this statement and that's what I feel. I haven't got the authorisation and I would be someone who would be caught under this', that, even if—and we assume this for the moment—we assume the possibility that the attorney-general hadn't shared with the Electoral Commissioner or minister Holloway or possibly other members of his cabinet what his intent was, his intent was revealed. It was disclosed, and what he wanted to do became very obvious.

The crux of all of this is that the only logical explanation as to why the former attorney-general would want to require such an absurdly broad interpretation of what this was to apply to was because he wanted to know who was going to be criticising him, or the government, and he wanted to be able to hunt them down and give them a barrage of his response, which he has done plenty of times before. When he has been able to find them, he gives them a bucketful of correspondence in response.

I myself have made statements, after which the attorney-general has sent off a barrage of correspondence demanding apologies, demanding this and that in lieu of defamation action, and so forth. It is just horrific. As a member of parliament, I can take it, but we had one person in my electorate of Bragg who had written to the attorney-general during the course of the preceding term about his concerns in respect to the David Hicks issue. I want members to appreciate how vindictive and nasty the former attorney-general can get when he finds out that someone has written to him and he objects to a statement that they have made.

The attorney-general wrote back to this constituent in Hazelwood Park and he explained what the government's position and policy were in respect to David Hicks. The first page actually seemed quite rational. It was an explanation of the government's position and it was quite clearly set out as to the position that the government had taken. On page 2, however, in the penultimate paragraph, this poor hapless member of the community gets a spray of abuse from the attorney-general—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Quote it!

Ms CHAPMAN: I am going to bring it in during the course of this debate—a spray of abuse—but how dare he even have the audacity to raise this issue in objection with the attorney-general. After all, he was a resident of Hazelwood Park so he should be complaining to the local member and not to him as the attorney-general. Let me remind members that members of the government are supposed be there for all South Australians, irrespective of where they might live. If they live in Hazelwood Park or any other Liberal electorate, or whether they live in the Treasurer's electorate of Port Adelaide, they are entitled to representation. To be rudely responded to in a reply which utterly rejected and complained of the audacity of someone to even write to the attorney-general on this important issue—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Quote it, Vickie.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will bring the quote in. It was a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. We know that the former attorney-general has got form. It was no surprise, in the end, that when this debate went wild in the public early in the election campaign and the outrage from the public that followed, we knew then what the attorney-general's form was like. He just corroborated it by his behaviour on radio subsequently. When he was caught out even in the simple case of someone he claimed did not even exist, eventually he comes crawling back with his response and that was, 'Oh, we put this through and this is my interpretation, but the Liberal Party supported it'.

I ask members to remember, as was evident from the other place, the undertakings that we were given in respect to this. It is a disgraceful situation when we are told one thing in a briefing, and even the parliament, and yet the attorney-general would come back and purport to introduce his new definition about what it should be. His behaviour is reprehensible. However, it occurred and possibly his announcement on the day after the election that he was retiring may have had something to do with how the rest of his colleagues thought about it.

Mr Pengilly: He got retired.

Ms CHAPMAN: He got retired, I am sure. The important thing is this: he asserted this and he was found out. He then said, 'Well, I can't do anything about this. It is not only the Liberals' fault because they consented to it, but I cannot do anything about this.' I pointed out on radio that there was a regulation power that he could use to remedy this, to ensure that it was not abused during the forthcoming election. In fact, what did the former attorney-general do? He came out and said, 'That is outrageous. I cannot possibly interfere with the parliament. I cannot possibly do that. That would be unconstitutional,' and that was his claim publicly.

Well, of course 24 hours later he came crawling back (probably beaten up by the Premier and other members of the cabinet, who must have been thinking by this stage, 'We've got a real problem here. This bloke has to go,') and said, 'Well, actually, she's right. I can do that, and I now will do that.' He then sent me the draft regulation that he proposed to put out to try to remedy this. Isn't it amazing? Never in the history of the eight years I have been here—and I have covered law and order in the lower house, either completely or as a representative for the party—never once did the attorney-general send me a draft regulation for approval—never once, and nothing during the caretaker period in 2006.

Mr Pengilly: He's gone the Adelaide Oval defence.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's right, 'I know nothing. Nobody told me, or I can't remember,' whichever applies, whichever is necessary to deal with it. However, the regulations were there. The regulations are in place which protect, at the moment, the abuse of this occurring. This bill introduces an amendment to ensure that it is dealt with at the parliamentary level. I mention that because I want members to be aware that, by sending this matter to a select committee, we are not leaving the public at risk. Even if a by-election were called tomorrow (possibly for Croydon, but who knows?), there would be no risk because the regulations are there. They are already in place, they have not been challenged by the parliament, they are being carried out, and so there is no risk of the people of South Australia being dragged into this during the course of this inquiry. That is the protection that we have in the meantime.

We agree that, ultimately, this issue should be resolved legislatively and that it is not a matter that should be within the parameters of regulation, but it has been utilised in the meantime in the emergency of the situation, and it is there to continue to provide that protection pending the inquiry by the select committee. During the course of the election, and subsequently, it became clear that there were other practices or events, which we had become aware of and in fact had been reported to the Electoral Commissioner, which clearly needed to have some attention given to them. That is why it is important that we clean up quickly all these issues related to the 2010 election.

We were disappointed to note that in another place, this motion being presented, attempts were made to bring up all sorts of other expanded terms of reference that predated the 2010 election. They are matters that can be the subject of a separate inquiry if they wish, but it was clearly the opposition's position, supported by other minor parties, that we needed to clear up the problems that occurred during the 2010 election, of which there are a number. Regrettably, this bill attempts to deal with only two, but the other clauses of the select committee's terms of reference of inquiry, including the provision of voting services, do need to be looked at.

The postal vote process, which apparently was inadequate to allow a sufficient number of people to get their postal vote before the requisite period in sufficient time to return it and cast a valid vote, was at risk during the election. There were a number of complaints in respect of that and, in relation to services to people with disabilities and residents of declared institutions and the accessibility to have an opportunity to vote, one example was the apparent omission of a number of prospective electors in the Flinders Medical Centre Emergency Department on election day who, it is alleged, were deprived of the opportunity to vote. It is very important that we quickly get to the bottom of the integrity of the role. The subsequent assertions, which form the basis of some litigation pending in the courts—a court of disputed returns hearing—relate to this question of the integrity of the role.

We have always had challenges in making sure that everyone who is legally entitled to vote gets a chance to vote, and everyone who is not on the roll and should not be on the roll, is excluded. There is also a category of electors on the roll whom we need to protect ourselves from; for example, multiple voters. These are aspects that we need to consider, and they have been the subject of correspondence and media coverage since the election. We need to make sure we have adequate measures and verification to ensure that we are protected against any abuse by an elector, whether it is by multiple voting or the use of a dead person's name to vote, etc. These are the sorts of things that we need to look into.

We suggest that the management of the election also needs to be considered. The Electoral Commission is a body funded by the government, and there needs to be a yearly review about whether it has adequate resourcing, because it is not only responsible for state elections but also for local government. For example, when the APY lands have an election, it is under the supervision of the Electoral Commissioner, and there are various powers under the act to refer other elections to be supervised.

The Electoral Commissioner has a very important responsibility to ensure that we have honest and fair elections, and he or she must have adequate resources to do so, and to particularly make sure that we uphold the high level of democracy on which this state was established, the history of which we are proud and want to maintain.

The inquiry also gives an opportunity for members, or other candidates—indeed, anyone in the public—to put forward a submission about aspects of this last election that may not have become apparent or published but which are of concern to them. During the course of the election, there were complaints that did not necessarily receive formal status. I am aware of one, for example, where the member for Enfield—now Attorney-General—published a document which attempted to give himself some credibility by relying on the quote of the Leader of the Opposition, the then shadow attorney.

The member for Enfield made a statement during the course of debate in the parliament that he was the star on the other side. I would not have put that in a pamphlet, because it is all relative. If you are a star amongst a whole bunch of idiots, that is one thing. I would not have rushed to that. However, he did use it, and whether that was on the relativity argument or the accuracy of it, as I understand it, the Electoral Commissioner, in the oral inquiry, did not think it was inaccurate or misleading; in fact, it was merely a statement that had been made. However, as to the veracity of the statement or as to whether or not it actually helped him, I do not know. I think the member's vote dropped about 12 per cent or 15 per cent, or something incredible, like all of the cabinet members of the Rann government.

Fortunately for most of them, they had a sufficient cushion in voting numbers, which just confirms to me that clearly that was a strategy of the union movement in South Australia which was outraged with the conduct of the government over issues such as WorkCover and decided it would give them all a belting in their own electorates. That was pretty effective, especially when it came to the one in the marginal seat, the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, who was then the minister for education and held other portfolios. She suffered the same fate and, because she was in a marginal seat, she is of course no longer here in the parliament.

It is reasonable for candidates to refer to quotes from the parliament. What we say in here is to be accepted as a statement that is made; it is accurately recorded by our good friends from Hansard. I think one of the most effective that was used by the Liberal candidate against the candidate for the Labor Party in the seat of Enfield was the statement made by the candidate in which he said of his time in parliament, 'I usually sit here quietly, not really expecting to have to say anything.' That is his great contribution to the parliamentary debates during the course of his time previously here in the parliament. Sometimes they are helpful; sometimes they are not.

The Liberal candidate, Mr Westley, is now the Liberal Party of Australia's preselected candidate in the federal seat of Adelaide. I personally wish him great success, particularly as part of that electorate covers the state electorate of Bragg, as it also overlaps the state seats of Adelaide, Norwood and Unley. The state members of the house who represent those areas are all on the Liberal side, and we are very keen to support Luke in his endeavours in making sure that we bring back federal Adelaide to the Liberal Party. He was an outstanding candidate during the state campaign, and he will no doubt be an outstanding candidate against minister Ellis.

The position then is that we support in principle remedying these two defects that are the isolated and, we think, too-restrictive provisions of the bill. However, we want them to be properly investigated, with others, in the select committee inquiry, that the terms of reference of that select committee inquiry are sufficiently narrow to ensure that that can happen promptly and, finally, that we should come back with proper consideration of this matter and have a bill before us which remedies these defects so that we properly progress not only to the next state election but also any other local government or other elections of which the Electoral Commissioner is vested to supervise.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (12:03): In the O'Connor side of my family the 1949 election campaign is folklore; in particular, that part of it when the member for the federal division of Reid, Jack Lang, accused Ben Chifley in the hours before polling in 1949 of being a moneylender. Jack Lang's accusation, completely false as it was and designed to get an Independent some publicity, was very damaging to prime minister Chifley, who was campaigning for the nationalisation of the banks.

As a result of that, according to O'Connor family folklore, the Menzies government that was elected at that election changed the law so that there would be an electronic media blackout for 48 hours before an election to stop people like Jack Lang making damaging false allegations that were calculated to affect the result of the election—not that I accept for a minute O'Connor family folklore that that is why Ben Chifley lost the election. That is my understanding of why the electronic media blackout came in. Of course, the commonwealth does not have the power to impose a non-electronic media blackout for 48 hours and that is why it is confined to the commonwealth constitutional power over electronic media.

It is important that material issued in the course of an election campaign, disseminated widely in The Advertiser, The Australian, the Messenger newspapers, and in an online journal like Adelaidenow, which is calculated to affect the result of the election, is labelled as being from a real person. It is important, in my view, that material issued under noms de plume or deliberately false names not be issued in the course of an election campaign because that material one day is going to affect the result of a general election, it is going to affect the results in lower house seats and it may affect the result in the upper house. If that material is issued, someone should take responsibility for it, and that is why I introduced the provision I did in the electoral bill.

I said on the eve of the campaign that the Adelaidenow website was a sewer of criminal defamation, identity theft and fraud. I said it without the cover of parliamentary privilege, and I stand by it. I notice that David Penberthy, the News Limited reporter, came out with a column after this controversy and said, 'Michael Atkinson is right about that,' because the online blogs have become just that: a sewer of criminal defamation, identity theft and fraud. I could give many examples in this house today that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Sorry, I do not have an hour to speak like the member for Bragg; I have only 20 minutes. I could give many examples but I will give just one. Obviously, Paul Starick, Michael Owen-Brown and Colin James, who run the Adelaidenow website, thought it was appropriate that a blog should be published saying that the Premier is a friend and protector of kiddie fiddlers. That will give you the tone of the Adelaidenow blog site. It is not just Labor that suffers; it is also MPs from other parties and Independents. Who takes responsibility for that? Well, certainly not the author because it was published under a nom de plume or a false name.

When I talk about identity theft and fraud, even in the aftermath of this controversy when you would have thought Adelaidenow would be on its best behaviour, there were something like, it appeared, six different people using my name and my address to blog on the Adelaidenow website. I ask members opposite to think: is that a good thing; should that be allowed? Well, I don't think so.

I stand by the original intention which was to say that material issued in an online journal like Adelaidenow in the election period, and only in the election period, should carry a real name, checked by the publication, and a postcode. Of course, the requirement for printed material is greater than that: it has to be a real name and a home address. I think that is a good requirement for civilising political discourse. Someone has to take responsibility in the election period—and it is only in the election period. In the other four years, the law lets it rip. In the other four years, people can continue to criminally defame people online under false names or noms de plume.

So, it affects only the four weeks every four years during an election period. Nevertheless, because News Limited has a commercial interest, ultimately, in sexing up its online content and ultimately charging for it (making you pay for it), News Limited had a commercial interest in stopping this law, and News Limited came out and said, 'You will stop this law.' And even though all 69 MPs in this parliament agreed to this law, they ran like rabbits the minute News Limited came out and said, 'We want this law repealed.'

I found myself out there supporting this law and, really, no-one else backing me, least of all the member for Bragg who invented some story about not understanding it and blamed those splendid people from the policy and legislation section of the Attorney-General's Department for misleading her. I don't think so! We had the claim from Hendrick Gout of TheIndependent Weekly that, in saying that we would repeal this law after the election, we were somehow forcing him to break the law—no such thing.

What we did do, though, is pass a regulation which clarified the scope of the parent statute so that hardly anyone would be caught by this provision during the election period. The original contribution of the member for Bragg to this debate was to reverse her position, to fall into line with her News Limited masters and say that she was now against this law and that you should be allowed to defame people anonymously or under a false name during the election period in a way calculated to affect the result of the election.

The member for Bragg said that the then attorney-general (namely me) should suspend the operation of the law. Well, early that morning, I told ABC radio that I could not suspend the operation of the law because that was unconstitutional; and, indeed, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 had occurred so that the executive could not suspend the operation of laws passed by parliament.

Ms Chapman: The guillotine.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, they did not use the guillotine at that time; that was a century later, in a different country, for the benefit of the member for Bragg. But when the member for Bragg said that we could pass a regulation to limit the scope of the law and to clarify it, I said within hours that that was a good idea and I accepted it, and I did it in a display of holy bipartisanship, entirely matching my vulnerable political position.

We did pass that regulation, so neither Hendrick Gout nor any other publisher was at any risk of being prosecuted during the election period. The government was not encouraging anyone to break the law, nor did my public servants ever mislead the member for Bragg or anyone about the scope of the effect of this law. Indeed, minister Holloway quite correctly stated the scope of the law; and, indeed, for the member for Bragg to say that I ever issued an edict saying anything different is straightforward verballing, and the member for Bragg will be unable to find such an edict or introduce it to the house.

I notice that, in the aftermath of the murder of Carly Ryan, there is some concern about people such as her murderer misrepresenting themselves online, and the harm and the damage that can be done in our society by people using blogging, the internet and social networking sites to deceive and mislead people, in this case, leading to the death of Carly Ryan. I think Nick Xenophon has had some good things to say about how we should regulate this, yet we see here—admittedly on a much smaller scale—the same problem, that is, blogging sites being used to mislead readers. Things are being added to blog sites, calculated to affect the result of the election, that are blatantly untrue. The member for Bragg, and all those who live in servitude to News Limited, come into this house and change the law—quite a sensible law—just to pander to the commercial interests of News Limited.

I am not even exempting myself from this, because I am as guilty as the rest of you because I announced the change of policy on the eve of the election campaign. However, eventually, there is going to be a federal or state election, the outcome of which is corrupted or perverted by someone going online and making criminally defamatory allegations, that is, allegations knowing them to be untrue or recklessly indifferent to whether they are true, and doing so under a false name or a nom de plume. In my view, we are all going to squeal when it happens but, here we are, making it possible.

There is a man in our society who is something of an expert on information technology and he took me aside after all this happened and said, 'Mick, I agree with you. People who publish things online in the course of an election campaign ought to put their real name to it. However, mate, you have to realise this: you are about 50 and I am about 50, and we all think that because we have grown up with it.' But there is another generation coming along, my son's generation, who regard it as their right to be able to publish false and misleading material online under a false name, because that is what they do. They get a kick out of it. It is the nature of blogging. This man said to me, 'Mick, don't worry about it, no-one takes it seriously. They only read their own blog. They don't bother to read anyone else's. They only go online to see what they contributed, and no-one believes it. It's junk.' I think that man is giving me good advice. I think he is correct.

But the problem we have is that people such as Paul Starick, the editor of the Adelaidenow website and the blog site, pulls material off his electronic site and then tries to treat it as representative of public opinion. So, he will publish a story on Adelaidenow saying X number of people or this percentage of bloggers think this and the government should respond to it. We had the extraordinary poll that he commissioned on Adelaidenow asking people, 'Who is going to win the state election?' Most of them said the Liberal Party. The second largest group said Gamers4Croydon were going to win the general election, even though they did not have enough candidates to form a majority in the House of Assembly. Apparently, the second-largest number of Adelaidenow readers and bloggers thought that Gamers4Croydon were going to win the general election. Of course, the third-largest number thought the Australian Labor Party was going to win.

We also had the Adelaidenow online poll after the now deputy leader (then the member for MacKillop) came out and told the truth about the Liberal Party and the city stadium, and he said the Liberal Party has not promised that taxpayers' money is going to go into a city stadium. That was true but, because it was contrary to News Limited policy, the editor of Adelaidenow put up a poll saying—and I cannot remember the exact terms—'Mitch Williams is a wally, Mitch Williams is a git, Mitch Williams is a fool, Mitch Williams is a moron' and, if you agreed with Mitch Williams and thought he was a good bloke and wanted to vote for him, you did not have a button that you could press. That was not a choice available to you.

So, this is the quality of the publications that will cover civic life in South Australia from now on. Make no mistake: The Advertiser is the past, Adelaidenow is the future. We are now voting to give them a licence in the election period to publish deliberately false and misleading material under false names or under a nom de plume.

Turning to the second element of the bill, the so-called dodgy how-to-vote cards, I notice that the member for Bragg made no analysis of the figures in Mawson, Morialta, Light or Hartley purporting to show that they affected the outcome of the election. Nevertheless, I agree with this provision because it was me who put it up in the electoral bill before the election. If the Liberal Party and Family First had agreed to pass my electoral bill in its original form, what happened with the dodgy how-to-vote cards in Morialta, Mawson Light and Hartley could not have happened because it would have been against the law.

Why did I introduce this provision? Well, because the Liberal Party did the same in the state district of Mawson in 2006. Of course, that is why the Hon. Robert Brokenshire did not want this provision to go through—because it would have prohibited what he himself did as the Liberal member for Mawson in the 2006 general election. It is a good provision, and I hope it passes both houses of parliament swiftly.

One final comment about the dodgy how-to-vote cards: it is my experience that about two-thirds of Family First preferences normally go to the Liberal Party and about one-third go to the Labor Party, if one calculates it purely in two-party preferred terms. If Family First directs its preferences to the Labor candidate (as I am pleased to say it did in the state district of Croydon), then Labor can get a bit more than 33 per cent of Family First preferences. We might get 50 or 60 per cent, but we certainly do not get more than that.

Family First is a minor party and generally gets a pretty small proportion of the vote, and two-thirds of the preferences are predetermined, so we are only talking about the one-third of Family First second preferences in the middle of that admittedly small vote. We are talking about very small beer, and really I do not understand why it was done by the Liberals in 2006, and I do not understand why it was done by some of our candidates in 2010.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:23): I have greatly enjoyed sitting here this morning listening to the contributions of the members for Bragg and Croydon, the defunct former attorney-general. However, I do not know whether legislation will ever be able to outmanoeuvre those who seek to beat the system. I was greatly interested in what the member for Croydon had to say, particularly about blogs, websites and God knows what else, because I actually agree with him. I think the whole thing is totally out of control. Anybody can say anything and not be responsible or accountable; this is the problem. I have no argument with that whatsoever. It concerns me how on earth we will elect people to this place from any party in the future with this sort of thing going on. That is the worry of it.

I come from a very conservative country electorate, and the vast majority of people in that electorate, whether they be 18 or 88 years old, could not have been bothered with that sort of nonsense, they really could not have been. It is interesting that, even in 2006, when I was first elected to this place, The Times newspaper in Victor Harbor ran a blog poll. From memory, I think it showed that the Labor Party candidate would get about 90 per cent of the vote and I was doomed. Well—and this is how stupid it is—our people got on there and levelled things up a bit. As it turned out, the Labor Party candidate in that election got beaten—and got beaten by an even larger amount in the election of 20 March; so I am quite happy about that.

It is an issue and, as technology and our means of communication change over the next five, 10, 20 or 30 years—and it is questionable whether they will improve, I might add—I seriously wonder whether people who stand for election in this place—if the federal parliament has not tried to get rid of us—will get a fair go and who will be elected to this place with all the stuff that is perpetrated online these days.

I find it extremely devious, and I was quite appalled at what was perpetrated through the last election in those seats where the artificial Family First T-shirt campaign and posters were put in place. I believe in a fair go. I come from a long line of Australians who believe in a fair go, and I suspect people in this place believe in a fair go. However, some of our political apparatchik do not believe in a fair go. They believe in 'win at all costs'. That's wonderful but let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I would prefer to be on that side of the house than this side of the house, so things may change.

Quite clearly, this legislation has created a substantial amount of debate in the Liberal Party, as it rightly should. There are those from either side who watched with alarm the outcome of the election in some seats as a result of dubious practices by the Australian Labor Party, in particular, in an attempt to shore up its candidates in a couple of seats.

I will watch and listen with interest to further debate in this place. I am not sure whether we will get much more debate in this house, but I am sure that in the upper house, with the wealth of knowledge and the different members from different parties and the Independents in that place, it will be debated long into the night when it finally gets there; and I suspect that, if it is considered in a committee, it will come back in a different form from what it is in this place. It will not go away in a hurry. We need to try to get it as right as possible. I know that we will not always be in agreement on it, but I watch with interest the passage of the bill and how it eventually ends up.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:28): I will contribute briefly to this debate. This is an important issue, and I am pleased to say it was not an issue that played out directly in the electorate of Stuart. I was fortunate enough to be running against quite a decent chap from the Labor Party. We spoke early on—well in advance of a year of the election—and agreed that neither of us wanted to be part of anything dodgy, underhanded or personally malicious. I credit him with not having participated in anything like that (to the best of my knowledge) and if he did, it did not work.

This issue is more broad than just the electorate of Stuart and, clearly, the electorates of Morialta, Mawson, Light and Hartley were directly affected by it. I think the bottom line is that the Labor Party participated where it thought it might make a difference; with very few exceptions—which, I understand, includes the member for Bright, and I congratulate her on that—the Labor Party did it where it thought it would make a big difference. That is sneaky, deceptive and very disappointing.

It does give me the opportunity to show the leadership of our two parties in great contrast, because there is no way that this sort of thing would have gone on without the leaders of the parties, the then and current Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, having the opportunity to weigh into this and very actively take part in discussion about whether their parties would participate. It clearly shows a very contrasting style of leadership and a very contrasting style of electioneering, both before and after the election.

In the last election our leader did absolutely nothing along these lines, and I think that is tremendous. I think from the top down, all the way from the current Premier through to candidates at the last election, this was clearly a plan of the Labor Party. It might be possible that some of the candidates whose electorates would not be affected by this were unaware of it, but from the top down the Labor Party would have known exactly what was going on. I repeat: I am sure that—with very few exceptions, including the member for Bright's electorate— the party did it where it thought it would work. To try to stay on any high moral ground any more than that does not count.

The other thing I would like to say is that I was not aware of this; I was not aware of this at all until immediately after the election—that is okay; Stuart is a long way from where all this happened—but guess what? Neither was the public. The public was not aware of this either until after it was too late. It was clearly designed to be a sneak attack at the last minute to deceive everyone involved. Then, when the public outrage became so clear and when everyone was so angry and upset—and we all know that at the time the public view of the Labor Party and the government was very dim with regard to this particular issue—the government decided it was important to bring forward this bill.

Of course the opposition supports this bill in this house. Our position is that we also want to refer it to the newly established select committee in the other place, but of course we support opposition to anything to do with fraud and deception at any time, and particularly when it comes to the public leading up to an election. Another thing that I believe it is very important to say—if you will allow me to move a little off the strict topic here, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that the select committee will look into a slightly broader range of issues than this bill puts forward and, on behalf of the people of Stuart, I would like to say a few words about postal votes, which are related to this topic.

We had a great deal of concern about postal votes in Stuart. Because of the timing of the issuing of the writ it was actually impossible for the Electoral Commission to get all the work done that needed to be done between the issuing of the writ and the election date. What happened was that a lot of people in Stuart—and I am sure in a lot of other electorates, particularly the further flung ones more distant from Adelaide—applied for postal votes on time, did everything expected of them according to the schedule asked but did not get their postal votes back in time to vote. So it was physically impossible for them to vote.

That caused a great deal of difficulty for a lot of people, and a lot of people contacted Graham Gunn's office before the election to talk about this issue specifically. This is a structural problem that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Labor Party would have looked to issue the writs as late as possible, quite likely with regard to causing this problem, but there were lots of people who did not receive their postal votes until during the week before the election—so, less than one week before the election. Now, you may have applied for a postal vote because you would be away on holidays or because you would be away working and would not be home to get it and, in a remote place in my electorate, you could not go to an alternative polling booth or a post office or something like that.

If you are in a remote place and you have applied for a postal vote and you get mail once a week, which happens in an enormous part of outback South Australia, you might get your postal vote back during the week before the election, and it is impossible, even if you have not gone away, to return your postal vote. So, that is a big issue, and I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, your allowing me to talk about that for a minute. Going back to the core issue, I say that no-one can deny that the Labor Party pursued this strategy in the lead-up to the election because it thought it would work, not because they were manipulated or because any candidate in any particular electorate was allowed to twist someone's arm. It was a Labor Party policy. It was disgraceful and something I would like to think we will never enter into in the future.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:36): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Publication of Electoral Material) Amendment Bill. It is with great concern that I speak on this bill, because I think it is inadequate in relation to correcting the problem it sets out to fix. I think it is appropriate that we signal that this should be considered by the Legislative Council select committee, as the opposition has done. Having said that, I want to briefly touch on what that select committee will be investigating.

The select committee was brought about by a motion in the Legislative Council that predated the introduction of this bill, so I am very interested in what that select committee comes up with. The select committee's terms of reference are as follows:

(a) the use of bogus how-to-vote cards and other election day material to mislead voters and measures that may be necessary to ensure that electors are not misled;

(b) provision of voting services, including voting by post, services to people with disabilities and residents of declared institutions;

(c) the integrity of the roll, including the identification of voters presenting and measures for subsequent verification; and

(d) management of the election by the Electoral Commission, including the powers and resources available to the commission.

Clearly, as other speakers have noted, this bill deals with two specific issues, that is, the bogus how-to-vote cards and the publication of people's names when they place content on internet sites.

I do not have any particular comment to make in relation to the second point. However, in relation to the bogus how-to-vote cards, I stand here as one of the four members who represent electorates in which these bogus how-to-vote cards were used. I proudly stand here as the only one of those members who was not responsible for using those bogus how-to-vote cards.

As others have done, I congratulate the member for Bright on her integrity in refusing to allow her moral standing to be compromised, and I think she did a very good job for her electors in maintaining their faith. However, the point is that the electors went to the polling booth and were confronted by people who were presenting as Family First volunteers. In many cases, those electors who sought out the Family First how-to-vote cards were not provided with that how-to-vote card—those people who wanted to support that party were given a misleading and deceptive how-to-vote card by the Australian Labor Party.

Obviously, as a candidate at the election, I was not able to hand out how-to-vote cards on election day, because for a candidate to hand out how-to-vote cards election day is obviously against the law. However, I was keeping in close touch with many of the volunteers in the Morialta electorate who were handing out how-to-vote-cards for me. I think it is worth placing on the record the chain of events as they happened. Of course, in the morning, all of the volunteers from both sides (that is, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party) arrived, often quite early in the morning and in most booths in Morialta the night before and they looked after the booths through the night.

At 7 o'clock the Family First people arrived and put up their posters as well, and they started handing out how-to-vote cards. At 8 o'clock, a separate group of supposedly Family First volunteers arrived wearing slightly different coloured T-shirts. They had the words 'Put your Family First' on their T-shirt, with the words 'Family First' in extremely large font to the point where they were clearly presenting as apparent Family First volunteers. Initially, we were wondering what was going on. We thought that maybe Family First had an idea that they would have some blue people and some red people.

About half an hour later, when people started coming back with questions, it became apparent that these were, in fact, bogus how-to-vote cards, they were preferencing Labor. Also of note is that they were presenting as Family First volunteers. I am looking at the Family First Hartley ticket here, which is along the same lines as the one that was in Morialta, but it does not even mention the Family First lead candidate in the Legislative Council. So, people were accepting this Family First how-to-vote card and they were not even being advised to vote for Family First in the Legislative Council. It could not be more deceptive.

At about 9 o'clock the Family First candidate in Morialta, who is a very fine woman and who I was in contact with (through my campaign team) regularly throughout the morning, was visiting polling booths to see what was going on. She was distraught at the fact that she had given up her time and made the effort to put herself on the line to offer herself for election, I think, it is fair to say, primarily in order to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire as the lead Family First candidate in the Legislative Council. That the Labor Party volunteers would seek to completely devalue that effort was distressing to her, and she was distressed that in many booths the Labor Party's volunteers—and I use that term advisedly, which I will come to—were outnumbering the Family First how-to-vote card people, so as to suggest that maybe they were the legitimate ones.

We know from the public record that has been admitted in the media by a number of people involved, that we are talking about staffers for Labor ministers interstate, members of the Labor Party and close personal associates of people in the Labor Party presenting as Family First volunteers. I think the Family First Party is absolutely justified and it is totally understandable why they would be so upset. I note that the leader of the Family First Party, the Hon. Dennis Hood, described it as 'deceptive, misleading, and plainly shows nothing but contempt for the political process.'

In his comments earlier, the member for Croydon, I noted, was talking a little bit about analysis of the election, so I thought it would be appropriate to consider some of the analysis that was given to the election. The member for Croydon, in his speech, spent most of the time actively disapproving of the Adelaidenow website and News Limited and also had a go at Hendrik Gout, but I will leave that until later. I will start with somebody who is generally respected across the board as an astute political analyst, Flinders University political scientist Dean Jaensch, who said it is 'the worst example of its kind I've seen in a 40-year career' and 'it is deceitful, deliberately designed to mislead voters. No doubt at all.'

The Independent Weekly, when it was dealing with this, helpfully, on the front page of the paper, provided a definition of the word 'fraud' as 'noun: trickery, sharp practice, any deception, artifice or trick,' and it is difficult to consider this matter without actually bearing that word in mind, and many have not. Hendrik Gout, in his article, said:

South Australian voters have been deceived in an election that was largely about trust, by a political party that apparently has no moral qualms about duping its way into government.

How apt. The Sunday Mail took a similar line, explaining:

Labor candidates who participated in this naked grab for power by allowing voters to be deliberately tricked should consider their victories forever tarnished, if not illegitimate. While they enjoy the fruits of office, the damage that has been wrought on our political system is horrendous. The public's faith in those who seek office has been enormously eroded, and the price on that trust is beyond measure.

I take very seriously the standards to which our communities expect us to behave in this place. I think that it is a great shame that the Labor government, through its candidates and its party's head office, has chosen to act in this way and to disregard those principles and standards to which we should all hold ourselves. The Sunday Mail also pointed towards William Glasser's choice theory by pointing out that 'people are responsible for their own behaviour, including where they set their ethical bar'. Again, I congratulate the member for Bright in setting her ethical bar higher than the Labor Party administration and those who have sought to retain power at any price; as Graham Richardson used to say, 'Whatever it takes.'

The member for Croydon, in his earlier contribution, said that the Liberal Party is being disingenuous by providing no analysis of the figures. I think he was trying to make the point that perhaps this poor behaviour by his side of politics did not change the results in any seats. Some people have described this to me as the attempted murder defence: I never actually killed him, so therefore what is the harm, what is the foul? The fact is, when people make a decision to behave in an immoral and irresponsible fashion, completely discarding the principles which we should hold dear as we pursue a liberal democracy, they are stepping over that line. They are responsible for their own behaviour, including where they set their ethical bar. They have been found to be unworthy.

I think that this warrants sincere consideration by more than a two paragraph press release from the Attorney-General, by more than a three-page piece of legislation that is introduced without any serious consideration of what the best way to go is; therefore, I support this being dealt with by a select committee. I hope that, over the next few days as the time draws near for the submissions to go to that select committee on 2 July, many people who feel as I do, that this behaviour is not good enough, will continue to do so. I hope that the government will reflect on its behaviour. It should not be the case that this sort of behaviour needs to be illegal in order that it not be pursued by a government that claims to want to represent the people of South Australia; they should know better than that.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:47): I, along with other members in this house, would like the opportunity to speak on the Electoral (Publication of Electoral Material) Amendment Bill. First up, I will make it quite clear that I believe in honesty, being upfront and giving all my opponents a fair go. I believe that everybody who puts their name up for an election, whether it is in state, federal or local government, should be honest and everything should be equal. They put themselves up to serve their electorate in whatever form, and the people of their communities will make their decision based on the information that is given to the media of that particular region and also based on what is in the state media. I have some grave concerns—and it did not happen in my electorate of Frome—and I was very surprised and disappointed when I saw some of the misleading information in other electorates of the state leading up to the previous state election.

As do other members here—and I will mention the member for Stuart in particular—I believe in allowing certain things, for example, what happens with the corflutes. Whilst time allowed us to put up those corflutes, I was on the road with three other groups, and we split my electorate into different regions. Basically, we were allowed to go in straight after midnight, but we got on the road at 7am. We went to some of my small communities in the electorate of Frome. In terms of my staff and volunteers, I am very appreciative of the 125 people who gave me a hand on the day.

We had to place my corflutes basically on every pole that I could grab in the small communities leading into that region. I do not think that is the best way to do it. If you have five candidates for an election, each one is entitled (if they are legally entitled) to put up that promotional material, ensuring that we all share the small amount of space and that we do not pollute the small communities. In the electorate of Frome everybody wore T-shirts, but the message on them was very clear. They very clearly showed the candidate's name and whether they were Independent, Country, Labor, Family First, or whatever they were; they were very clear messages.

So, when people come to the polling booth on the day, it is very confronting because, if five candidates are standing, and five people are trying to get there first to give out the how-to-vote cards, it is terrifying for some people, and some are so concerned or disappointed that they really fear going to a polling booth for fear of being intimidated. I honestly have to say that I pay tribute to every candidate in my electorate, because it was very fair. It was very clean and clear, with no misinterpretation to the electors. The only thing I would say is that, if you are handing out how-to-vote cards, the card should state the name of the candidate whose No. 1 vote is being asked for.

We had a how-to-vote card for the leader of one of the major parties, and I believe that is very misleading, as small communities are going to vote for the person who they think should represent them for the next four years. We do not personally pick the Premier of the state or the Prime Minister of our country. The parties pick those, and that is the democratic system. Similarly, the how-to-vote cards should be for the candidate themselves, not for the leader of the political party. This was very confusing and daunting to some of the older people, and to some of the younger people, who really do not understand the system.

I will now touch on the postal voting cards that went out. Both major parties send these out to as many as they can in their electorates, and it is very confusing for the voters out there. People came to me saying, 'Why haven't I got one of your postal vote cards?' I explained that I did not believe in doing that and that, if they wanted an application for a postal vote, they should apply to the Electoral Commissioner. However, it is very confusing because people see that card and ask why they need to send that application (they presume it is an actual voting card) back to the candidate of that electorate. Going forward, this is something that I believe we really should be putting a stop to, and I would love the committee to be able to look at that as one of those items.

On the occasion of the last election, one of the major parties (I am not going to name the party as they know who they are) sent how-to-vote applications to aged-care facilities in the electorate. I am a novice at this, as I have only been here for 14 to 16 months, but even I know that the Electoral Commissioner has people who go to hospitals and aged-care facilities. The major parties should not send application cards or applications for postal votes to aged-care facilities.

It becomes very confusing because what happens is, as you are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, they get these cards, they think it is the only card they have to fill out and they send it back. When the Electoral Commissioner comes around on polling day with their staff, the professionals from the Electoral Commission, they are very confused because they then vote again, which puts more pressure on the Electoral Commissioner. If the polling in that particular electorate is very close, it can put the result in doubt or make it a long time before a decision is made. That is something that we really need to do going forward, and I hope that this committee will look at that.

The member for Stuart paid tribute to his opponents. I will do that with mine. I will compare this general election with the by-election. In February last year, the by-election was entirely different. It was very clear, very fair and we all got on very well. We all knew that we would put our hands up and the people would make the choice. I am grateful that the people of Frome gave me the opportunity to represent them for the next four years and I will be working with all the parties here to ensure that we go forward.

We have a couple of minutes remaining. One of the things is that, in the community, there is a fair bit of cynicism towards major parties and politics. I think we need to be very clear and upfront, because leading up to an election we all get bombarded with promises and lots of statements and commitments, and it is very confusing. If we had to pay for all the commitments made during the election campaign, I think we would be up to about $1.5 billion, which is not going to help the budget going forward.

The last thing we should do is create more confusion for the electors on polling day. Electors should be able to come to a polling booth and, when they are approached, it should be in a friendly manner. There should be very clear—not misleading—information on people's T-shirts and/or the how-to-vote cards. The member for Stuart has just handed me a note; I agree with the member for Stuart. We get on very well, we have adjoining electorates and we will be working very closely together on various issues, as I will be with the member for Schubert and the member for Goyder, among others. I will finish by referring to the member for Stuart's note: 'The way you campaign indicates the way you will operate as a member if you are successful.' I thank the member for Stuart for that: it is a very good saying and I certainly endorse it. I rest my case.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:58): Thank you to the member for Frome for attempting to drag his contribution out to one o'clock. I, too, would like to echo the sentiments of the member for Frome and also the member for Stuart and say that, in the seat of Flinders, the election was fought as a very clean fight. In fact, all my opponents fought the clean fight. We saw a lot of each other during the election. In a country community, we were often all at the same event at the same time.

In many ways, we in Flinders were untouched by the election trickery that occurred on 20 March this year. I note that there were no dodgy how-to-vote cards in my electorate. There were no dodgy T-shirts used in my electorate. However, I would like to put on the record my absolute disdain for the deceitful conduct of the Australian Labor Party in those marginal metropolitan seats where bogus how-to-vote cards were used. In fact, I think it goes to the very heart of our parliamentary democracy, and I think South Australians were rightly outraged by what occurred at that state election. I believe that this bill seeks to ensure that such a deceptive practice never occurs again at any future election. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


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