HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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 (resumed on motion).

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (16:41): There have been quite number of contributions from that side, but I do not know that anything new has been said since the remarks made by the member for Bragg in response. However, I do want to touch on some new and quite serious matters which were alluded to by the member for Croydon. I share his concern about the provisions relating to contributions to the internet.

At the time the act we are now amending was considered, we were faced with this situation of having a new media for the expression of people's opinions and the exchange of information, and looking at how that fitted into the protocols that have been traditionally used in relation to the publication of letters in the lead-up to an election. As everyone knows, at any time during the cycle of an election, other than during the election period itself, people can write to The Advertiser, The Australian, The Australian Women's Weekly, or anywhere they like, and they do not have to disclose their name and address.

However, during an election period it is a requirement that name and address be disclosed for the traditional reason of ensuring people's identity can be determined and that people, if necessary, can be made to stand by the statements they make. On the internet and in the world of blogosphere people invent any sort of name. I fear that Redhead No. 795 might be taken already, but I can adopt any identity I wish and contribute anything I might like to say.

I recognise that there are times when the ability to use the internet without disclosing your identity can be quite useful. For instance, the world knows about some atrocities in Iran and the death of a young woman protester because of the internet. We would not expect those people to disclose their identity, as we know that their lives would be put at risk. I understand there were also some very interesting disclosures from a recent Liberal Party meeting, at which someone made some very interesting comments about the member for Sturt.

I do not actually stand by the notion of people being able to distribute that information without disclosing their identity; I would prefer that people stood by their comments. However, the fact that during the election period people using the blogosphere objected to having to disclose their identity raises several points of concern. It indicates that either they just want to make mischief and throw anything they like into the campaign period—which is not, I think, a good response to democracy—or they are living in a situation of fear, such as happened in Soviet Russia, etc. That is also not healthy for democracy.

However, my main concern relates to the messages that are being sent to young people. At the moment, teachers in all our schools are trying to talk to young people about responsible use of the internet, and there have been some very serious incidents in which children have been very badly affected by material that has been posted on the internet. There was a recent incident in South Australia involving a fight at a school, where film of the fight was loaded onto YouTube, and the mainstream media got hold of it very quickly. The person who had posted the item on YouTube was identified and told to remove it, which they did; however, the principal checked the Adelaidenow site only to discover that Adelaidenow did not just have a link to the original YouTube site, but had copied it and was continuing to show this unedifying exhibition. It finally decided to remove it after very strong representations from the Department of Education and Children's Services.

Every school has programs to remind children that they have to stand by every single thing they put on the internet, and they are reminded of the damage it does to other children. One of the strong messages is that if you are not prepared to say something to someone's face, do not think you can just put it in a text or on the internet and it does not mean anything. I am very concerned that on one hand we are trying to teach children to take responsibility for what they put on the internet but on the other we have a group of—presumably—adults who have demanded the right to put anything they like on the internet without taking responsibility.

Of course I will support this bill, because it results from an election commitment, but I sincerely hope that before the next election we will have another amending bill, as we better learn how to cope with the responsibility that we should all own as a result of the new media. It is no good to simply say, 'I can do anything I like and I demand the right to say anything I like, and I want to be Redhead746', and say—well, I will not even bother to invent the sort of thing that equates to some of what I have read on those internet sites. They can only be described as irresponsible, mischievous and adolescent; very rarely is there a contribution of any value or merit. It seems to me to be a total waste of electricity and, often, employers' time.

As a community we need to come to far better grips with this wonderful tool we now have. However, in doing so it is very important that we as adults think about what we demand for ourselves and how that reflects on what we ask children to do. At the moment the two messages are not very consistent, and I would like to see that they are and that we behave as responsibly as children.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:49): I rise to support the passage of the bill through this house. I want to speak to the paper put out by Jenni Newton-Farrelly entitled, 'Wrong winner election outcomes in South Australia'. In mentioning this report that was put out by the Parliament Research Library, I want to reflect on comments made by the member for West Torrens. He was going to explain during his tirade why some members opposite resorted to using the bogus how-to-vote cards in the seats of Light, Mawson, Hartley and Morialta, but in the whole speech I do not think I got that explanation. Be that as it may, this report, which talks about 2010 and non-uniform swings, states:

At the recent state election of 2010 South Australia has recorded another wrong winner election result. The Labor Party has won a majority—26—of the Assembly's 47 seats with only 48.5 per cent of the two party preferred result across the state.

As mentioned further down in the report:

The 2010 election in South Australia raises constitutional issues for the state—it is clearly a wrong winner election...

Having been elected to this place twice and gone through one redistribution, I know what the redistribution cycle tries to fix, but it is working on historic election results. I am still not certain how, in this modern day and age, trying to do that every four years, when clearly it is not working—as it has not worked until now—is appropriate. My personal opinion is that it would be far better if these things were done, perhaps, every two terms, but it does seem not to get the right results. So, I think some reform is needed there.

I note that the member for Croydon, the former attorney-general, was making comments wondering why these bogus how-to-vote cards, these 'put your family first' cards were used in the seats of Light, Mawson, Hartley and Morialta. This was a party that had come to the conclusion that it did not have 10 months ago, and some commentators did not have 10 months ago, when they thought that the Liberal Party was going to be a walkover. However, under the leadership of Isobel Redmond, we actually got 51.6 per cent of the vote and should have won the election.

It is interesting that some people were that horrified that they might lose their seat that they would resort to these tactics. The only reason the Labor Party is giving us for resorting to these tactics is that, allegedly, it is not illegal. I believe it to be immoral, if nothing else. At the end of the day, in those respective seats, it may not have made a difference. For all the outrage, and rightly so, that has come against those members who employed these tactics, you wonder why they bothered. I reflect on the Electoral Act 1985, part 2, section 112B—Certain descriptions not to be used:

(1) A person must not publish or distribute an electoral advertisement or a how-to-vote card that identifies a candidate—

(a) by reference to the registered name of a registered political party or a composite name consisting of the registered names of 2 registered political parties; or

(b) by the use of a word or set of words that could not be, or may not be able to be, registered as the name, or as part of the name, of a political party under Part 6 because of the operation of [the relevant sections]...

From my reading of that—and I am not a lawyer, I come from a humble farming background—I would have thought that the how-to-vote cards would have been illegal. However, when it was put to the Electoral Commissioner, she deemed it not to be so, which I find very interesting to say the least.

I note that this bill inserts new Section 112C—Publication of matter regarding candidates. Subsection (1) states:

If, in any matter announced or published, or caused to be announced or published, by a person on behalf of any association, league, organisation or other body, it is—

(a) claimed or suggested that a candidate in an election is associated with, or supports the policy or activities of, that association, league, organisation, or body; or

Further subsections boost the legislation to make it absolutely sure that this cannot happen again. It is interesting that members on the other side deem that, because it is not illegal, we can use this practice. It is a bit like, if we did not legislate which way to get out of bed in the morning, you might lean to the left or the right; and then we note some members shifting their allegiances on the other side as well. It seems to be that morality goes out the window and we will do what we think is best in our position.

It was interesting to note during the election the former attorney, the member for Croydon, alleging that a person did not exist, then we found out that he was one of his own constituents. That was very interesting reading in the paper and viewing on the media. It is interesting that many people seem to want to write blogs and remain anonymous for a whole range of reasons. We are in a new age. I mean, I am not a twitterer or a blogger—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tweeter: the thing is Twitter but the verb is 'to tweet'.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always learning more in this house, but it just goes to show how keen I am to get involved in some of these new social media like Twitter or to tweet. Quite frankly, I think I have far better things to do with my time, but that is only my personal opinion. It is interesting and I recall the member for Reynell sounding the note of caution on this. So long as people are not making disingenuous remarks, I think the way we are heading with this legislation is the right way, but yes, I do agree, we do need to monitor it, as we do with everything that happens in our lives, especially with electronic mediums.

I mean, 20 years ago, in certain places the internet was in its early stages and, over time, it has reached the point where you can access your emails via your mobile phone. Now we have the introduction of iPads. The electronic world is just booming along. So, certainly we will need to keep a watch on the use of electronic technology, but I think that is the aim of this place: to keep a watch on all these things and all relevant matters to the state.

Just reflecting on the postal votes issue, it was certainly a major issue during the election, especially in country electorates, and my electorate is not that far from the big smoke. The boundaries of electorates start near Goolwa and at Monarto and then head out east towards Pinnaroo. Quite a few people contacted my office to say that they had not got their postal vote applications and then, down the track, some of these people received a letter from the electorate office asking why they had not voted. I think that is an issue with timing: from the time the writs are declared, postal vote applications go out.

I think the Electoral Commission really needs to change the way it is doing this. Instead of sending correspondence to the address it has listed, it needs to send it to the person's postal address. The postal address is what is vital here. I know there was some confusion with people getting their postal vote applications. I think there were twice as many postal vote applications as last time, from memory. The Electoral Commission needs to have a good look at how these are handled next time.

I noted the comments from the member for Stuart. People need to be timely and accurate in getting these applications out because, as he said, they get their mail only once a week and they may not get the opportunity to vote. The right to vote is something that we cherish in this country, and long may it be so. When handing out how-to-vote cards at polling booths, you occasionally have the odd person who thinks they are forced to vote. They roll up, jump out of their vehicle and say, 'Oh, we've got to vote again.' They should be thankful for that. It is what so many of our countrymen and women have died for overseas: the rights of democracy. I certainly respect what all those people have fought for.

In moving forward, I note that the select committee in the other place is underway. I hope it looks long and hard at all electoral matters—especially the matters being debated today—so that we can get a fair result in elections and so that we can get people operating in a just and moral way. You would like to think that some people would not need legislation to point them in the right direction, and I commend the Deputy Speaker (the member for Bright) for not taking up the offer of dodgy put-your-family-first cards.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:03): I want to make a few comments in relation to this bill. Let us not mess around with this issue. We have to actually look at this for what it is. If there was ever an admission of guilt by the Australian Labor Party, this is it. This is about bringing in a law to try to control the Labor Party's behaviour because, under its own admission, it cannot control itself. We saw a number of dodgy, shonky practices throughout the election campaign, but this practice started well and truly before the election campaign itself commenced, which was back in January, if my memory serves me correctly.

We saw this dodgy law and order card put out highlighting some issues by the ALP. It had the return mail address care of Isobel Redmond; however, the postal address was that of the ALP headquarters. Now, if that's not a shonky practice, I do not know what is. Then we saw it start through the election campaign. A letter went out to a number of people in our constituencies claiming that assistance for new mothers was going to be withdrawn. That message was absolutely fraudulent in its intent. I do not think the Liberal Party had ever discussed that as a change in policy at all, leading up to and including the election campaign. So, for the ALP to float those notions it was absolutely dodgy and deceitful. That was part of the practice leading up to election day.

What do we see on election day? We see at least four electorates running out these dodgy how-to-vote cards: the ALP in Light, Mawson, Morialta and Hartley. It was quite blatant that the ALP had set out to deceive. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive voters. The whole campaign run by the ALP was littered with deceit. People with dark glasses were standing there wearing shonky T-shirts and handing out how-to-vote cards purporting to be from another party. That occurred in four seats, as we know. Some anecdotal evidence was provided to me (as the Liberal candidate and then the re-elected member for Kavel) from somebody from one of the minor parties after the election that at one of the big booths in the electorate this activity was taking place in the electorate of Kavel.

I cannot stand here and say that it is a cold hard fact that that took place, but somebody reported to me that they saw that activity early in the morning of 20 March and then, obviously, something happened and that activity ceased. I want to put that out there as well. However, this exposes the Labor Party and its campaign for what it is. It puts in the glare of the spotlight what the ALP is when it comes to campaigning. There is no integrity, no morals and no honesty, because handing out these how-to-vote cards was a deliberate attempt to deceive. You cannot put any other inflection or inference on it at all.

The member for Bragg highlighted that, to your credit, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were one of the candidates who was running (and, I understand, the member for Newland was as well) and who were approached by the ALP campaign machine to run these dodgy how-to-vote cards on election day, and you refused. That is a sign of integrity and honesty of at least two ALP members—but not the four, because one lost. The member for Morialta lost her seat and we on this side of the chamber have a newly elected member for Morialta who is doing an outstanding job in the parliament and for his constituency. It is an outstanding job that the newly elected member for Morialta is doing.

However, what do we see after they were exposed, after this deceit and dishonesty was exposed? From memory, the ALP person who was heading up the campaign basically said, 'Well, if we had the opportunity to do it again, we would do it again.' So, we see the government bringing in a law to stop the ALP from recidivism—if you like, from repeat offending. That says a lot about the ALP when it comes to campaigning. It plumbs to new depths of deception, a new level, a new low. It is my opinion that the ALP is the only party that can actually get there. What did we see after this deceit was exposed? We saw a couple of members put in the spotlight in the media and they said, 'We're sorry. We're really, truly sorry that this took place.' I might be a bit difficult to get on with sometimes and a little bit hard of heart, but I do not think that that apology was really made in—

Mr Gardner: Insincere.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, insincere. The member for Morialta has explained it very well. It was an insincere apology, because really what does it say? The ends justify the means. It does not matter what the ALP needs to do to win, they will do it, and this is a glaring example of that. I see the member for Croydon has been an active participant in this debate, and what did we see take place in relation to the member for Croydon? He actually got pulled off the campaign. He got silenced because he had that embarrassing backflip in relation to the issues with posting comments on websites such as Adelaidenow and the like. The poor old beleaguered then attorney-general had to come out and admit he was wrong, and from that point on he was taken off the campaign by the campaign heavyweights.

It is only my interpretation, but as a result of that he was so incensed that the day after the election he decided to resign from the front bench and go to the back bench, and then on the same day say that he was not going to contest the next election in 2014. However, more recent events have brought about the circumstance that I think the member for Croydon might be reconsidering that initial announcement, but time will tell.

Let's not be fooled about this: the ALP took a conscious, measured, strategic approach to this sort of campaigning. It was not something that they dreamt up; it was something that they put in place in a measured, strategic way, and what we find ourselves debating this afternoon is a law to stop this activity occurring again. As I said, it says something very clear about the ALP: that it cannot trust itself to actually not engage in this type of activity again.

As I said, we saw people dressed up in dark glasses. The press reported that it flew them in from Queensland and so on so there was arguably some anonymity about these people, but they were certainly identified as—I think they were staffers.

Mr Gardner: Interstate ministerial staffers.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Interstate ministerial staffers, flown in with dark glasses, a cap on and these dodgy T-shirts purporting to be other than ALP representatives. So that is the situation we find ourselves in: a pretty poor set of circumstances, in my opinion and the opinion of members on this side of the house. As I said, it puts this issue front and centre, as a glaring example of the ends justifying the means when it comes to ALP campaigning. Let's hope that this legislation will clean the mess up for what it is and so that we do not get a repeat occurrence of what took place leading up to and including 20 March.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:14): I will not speak at length, but I just want to say a few words in relation to what happened at the 2010 election.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, take your time, member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: I have been around for 20 years and I have seen some skulduggery.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 20 minutes; you should make use of them.

Mr VENNING: I reckon 97 per cent of the skulduggery has been on one side of the parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed, and if you wish to talk about that you may.

Mr VENNING: Or higher than that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What I am saying, member for Schubert, is that you have 20 whole minutes.

Mr VENNING: In three elections out of the last six, the party that achieved more than half the vote did not win it, and that is a fact. I do note the work of the library's Jenny Newton-Farrelly and the paper she put out. I congratulate her on an excellent paper, which really does highlight a few salient facts, namely, what the heck is happening here in South Australia? Labor snuck in again with, and I quote the media, 'the more effective marginal seat campaigners'. Yes, that seems to be the case—well, at least that is the case on the surface. We now know of the dodgy how-to-vote cards and coloured T-shirts with people masquerading as someone from another party.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am not aware of any of that. This is a deliberate act to mislead the voters, to win at all costs. It is a disgrace in a modern society that a major political party with history would get out and do that. As it turned out I do not think it changed the result terribly, but the fact is that they did it and there were critical people on the other side—yourself included, madam—who knew that this was happening. I just cannot believe that could happen.

This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the people of South Australia. We have already heard during the last two weeks of parliament how the people of South Australia were being misled by the Treasurer, who has not only misled the house but also, worse than that, I believe, he misled the people of South Australia because of the two major project cost blowouts. If these facts were known, if these people were straight and I am sure that if the Hon. Lynn Arnold was still the premier, this would not have happened. It did not happen under his watch, I can tell members, because the guy is credible and he is straight. It did not happen under him, nor did it happen under John Bannon. Just check back on the credibility of certain people and why this has been allowed to happen.

I do not believe that it should happen on either side of parliament. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not straight. People expect us in this place to play honourably. The people of South Australia, after all, are entitled to make a decision on straight, honest information, and the grand architect is poking his head through the door—that is the member for Croydon. I think that he is quite proud of it. He does not dispute it. He is quite proud of his record here, and it goes back many years.

As a person with some sort of Christian ethic (me and others), I cannot believe how people can allow their Christian ethic to get mixed up with the sort of shonky business that goes on here. You should not do that but, in this instance, I have difficulty splitting the two. Where is the government's credibility?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. I am sorry, member for Schubert. The member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have just entered the chamber and it appeared that the member for Schubert was accusing me of being the grand architect of violations of the Electoral Act, or things that should be violations of the Electoral Act, and I ask him to withdraw that offensive innuendo. I am, of course, the grand architect of the electoral bill that passed the last parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know that those were his—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not even had a chance to speak yet. Please sit down, member for Schubert, because people keep talking when clearly it is my turn.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I was just waiting for you. I do not think that the member for Schubert actually used those words, member for Croydon, and you yourself have pointed out that you were not actually in the chamber at the time: you were sort of hovering outside, so, in this instance, I think that we shall move on. The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: Thank you. I did not say that. The honourable member's conscience has got to him, because he has revealed exactly the situation himself. I did not have to do that. Anyway, let it be; it is on the record, and I have said before what I think about the whole deal. Where is a government's credibility? I do congratulate the Attorney-General on attaining his position; he should have had it years ago. I honestly believe that this man is honest and straight, and I do not know how he fits with all this. No doubt it would not have happened in his electorate; it did not happen in mine, either.

Where is your credibility in relation to a matter such as this? Labor has a history of this over many years. In the 20 years I have been here we have seen it on many occasions. We have seen some very scurrilous activity. People have been personally vilified. One who comes to mind is the member for Florey at the time, Mr Sam Bass. Four days before the election there was a picture of him and a machine gun and the caption was: your member loves these. Then there was another photograph of him sitting on the beach at Nauru, of all places—he went there on parliamentary duty. The caption was: here is your member swanning on this beach at Nauru. If you knew Nauru, you would know there is no beach on Nauru: it is just one big quarry. That cost Sam Bass that election, and he contested it and won, but he did not get his seat back. You do not reverse the result.

This is the sort of dodgy stuff that has been going on for many years. I still see those pamphlets and they are horrific. They are designed to mislead and put a very bad light on people. Particularly in a society in which we force people to vote, people are undecided about who they are going to vote for and they are not really dedicated, because it is compulsory voting. They get there and see this sort of stuff and, suddenly, it turns them. There are some tacticians in this place who certainly know how to do that, and they do it very effectively, with this sort of result. I say that if you are going to do that you are not credible.

They have done it three times out of the last six and we have had a wrong result. I plead with the commissioner. I do not know how the commissioner draws boundaries, but I agree with the member for Hammond that it is wrong that we should redraw the boundaries after every election. I say that at least we could change that and I think we could agree that it should be after every second election.

I have been savaged by boundary changes. In fact, I recall my seat in an interim report disappeared altogether. I can recall the day I was with Dale Baker in a pine forest in the South-East and it was the day the boundaries would be announced. We were having a cup of coffee and Dale had his phone in his hand and the phone rang and he was talking away and he started to stir his coffee with his phone and I thought, 'Something's a bit off.' We were in the middle of the Tarpeena pine forest. Members will know how cool Dale is, and I thought, 'Something has upset him.' He said, 'You are going to get a phone call, Ivan.'

About two minutes later my phone rang and, sure as eggs, Custance, as it was then, had gone. It had disappeared altogether. I had nowhere to go. So, I have been savaged. Anyway, as it turned out, thanks to the workers and supporters of the Liberal Party and a good lawyer like the Hon. Robert Lawson, and others, we created a new seat—the best seat of all—Schubert. Again, from adversity, the phoenix rose to become this beautiful seat I have now. I was very upset at the time. I was pretty upset—'devastated' would be the word—and look what happened.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me for one moment, member for Schubert. Attorney?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am very reluctant to interfere with the honourable member's trip down memory lane. It is a great yarn and I think, if he is really quick about it (that is, finishing what he is about to say), there will be a grievance, possibly—you never know, there could be—where he will be able to give us a lot more information about that topic. I was becoming very interested in it but, unfortunately, not in the context of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is possible that the Churchillian nature of the member for Schubert's wilderness years are not exactly germane to the matter we are meant to be discussing. I can see your fingers, member for Schubert. Yes, carry on.

Mr VENNING: Thank you. I will get back to the point. I was distracted and got off on a side track. We need to consider introducing a system where a party that gets 50 per cent of the vote, plus one, should govern. We have to do that. I know the German system works well, that is, a party that gets 50 per cent, if it does not govern, has members at large and they put them in until that party has enough to govern.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Have you got that on the Notice Paper?

Mr VENNING: Yes. That is exactly what we need to do, because we cannot have this result where the whole state now is targeted in four or five marginal seats. That is where all the emphasis is and that is where all the money is spent, and it is wrong. No wonder we cannot get a new hospital in the Barossa Valley. Why? Because there are no votes there for the Labor government. To the credit of the previous Liberal government, we got a lot of things in my electorate—purely because I had to work hard and use skulduggery and get heavy with several ministers who were friends of mine—Olsen included. Otherwise, my seat misses out both ways, with a Liberal government or a Labor government. We have to change the system to take away the emphasis from marginal seats, and we should do it before I leave this place because it is crazy. Why don't we go down the path of random ballot papers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with a relatively confined question about two matters. I know the honourable member is interested in these matters—and fair enough—but he has put a matter on the Notice Paper which deals with this particular issue. I am sure when that is debated he will be able to give us a lot more information about those topics, but they are not strictly relevant to this matter—or vaguely relevant, to be fair.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No point of order, but the vague relevance criterion is probably a good one, member for Schubert. Let us get back to the vaguely relevant.

Mr VENNING: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for deliberately saying no to the dodgy T-shirt brigade that masqueraded as another party. It is unbelievable that they did that, particularly when you see what was written on the T-shirts. Good on you for doing that. Also, a shonky letter was sent out with Isobel Redmond's face and credentials on it, and the details and address on it of course were that of the Labor Party. I thought that was outrageous. That is not even smart funny.

Ms Chapman: It's desperate stuff.

Mr VENNING: It is desperate stuff, and it is terrible. The fact is that the government can rise or fall on four or five marginal seats, and I think we need to change that. How hypocritical is it that the government now introduces legislation to outlaw what it did—not what we did but what it did? It is really a bit rich. We saw huge swings against many long-term ministers in this place, purely because they did not do dodgy work there—and they did not do much work anyway. There was huge a swing of up to 20 per cent in Adelaide. When you see the swings across the state you must question what happened. Why was it so? Who was the architect of all this? Did the Premier or the Deputy Premier know? No wonder people do not trust politicians. In the light of this, where did the dodgy documents come from? We discussed that matter earlier.

We must look at what we do here. I certainly support any legislation that tidies it up. We should not need to do it all. I think it is unnecessary legislation, but if we are going to have dodgy parties then we must have legislation to stop them. It is a bit rich that they were the big offender. I believe that the South Australian people in the 2010 election got absolutely hoodwinked, because 51.6 per cent of them did want a change of government, 51.6 per cent of them did not want the government's plans for the Royal Adelaide Hospital—ask the former member for Adelaide—and certainly did not want the government's sports stadium scheme. It is an interesting time, and I support the legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Tourism) (17:28): It is a great pleasure to bring this phase of the debate to an end. First, I thank the member for Fisher. The member for Fisher indicated that he did have an amendment in relation to this matter.

I understand from speaking to the member for Fisher that the object of the amendment—which, I must say, puzzled me and I think, also, the member for Bragg was not entirely clear about it because we were discussing where it might be leading—was his concern that people might be misrepresenting themselves as being local when they were not. I think that is a matter that can be cured by far more direct means than compulsorily putting their names and addresses out in the public domain, because there may be good reasons why they should not be. I thank the honourable member for reviewing his position and withdrawing that amendment, which should make what comes after this hopefully a little simpler.

Secondly, I thank the member for Bragg and the other speakers for the opposition who, amongst saying a great many other things, have indicated that they wish to support the bill. I do not want to lose sight of the good things amongst the other bits and pieces. I appreciate the support offered by members of the opposition. I must say that I lament that support was given at such length and so many times but, nonetheless, support is support and when it comes one should be grateful. I wish to make a couple of remarks about some of the matters raised, in particular matters raised by the member for Bragg who, I must say, thoroughly covered all the issues addressed by any of the members before others, basically, returned to it.

The first question is putting this in some context. Before the election there was an issue about the AdelaideNow website. Both the member for Bragg and the former attorney made public statements about this issue, and it was clear that both parties were committed to dealing with it after the election, whoever won. That is one part of this. The second part is the question about the so-called 'dodgy' how-to-vote cards. That matter arose on election day; it was the subject of controversy, and an undertaking was given by the returning government early on in the piece that it would be dealt with. I think it is important for members opposite to understand that from the time I became Attorney I was committed to delivering on these promises as quickly and as effectively as possible.

The history of the matter is that on 6 May—which was the day that parliament resumed—I gave a notice of motion indicating that these two matters would be the subject of a bill that would be brought forward the following week. On Tuesday 11 May there was a press release about it, and the bill was introduced on Thursday 12 May. So, in no way was this legislation responsive to the moves in the upper house; indeed, if we were to analyse it in terms of a time line, what happened there was that the Hon. Stephen Wade initially introduced a motion on 12 May, which was not subsequently carried until 26 May with amendments.

That actually came after what we foreshadowed here, so it is in no way any sort of reaction from the government to the upper house inquiry. Quite the contrary: by the time line it seems that the upper house inquiry postdates it. Whether that was a reaction to it or not I do not know. In any event, these two provisions were deliberately chosen to be brief and to the point, because undertakings had been given; first, before the election by both parties, and, secondly, with both parties expressing their unhappiness about the how-to-vote cards issue after the election. It seemed to me that the sooner we got these things into the parliament and passed the better.

The second thing I would like to say is that I expect, in the fullness of time, that the Electoral Commissioner will provide a report to the parliament and the government about the way this last election was conducted, and it would not be at all unusual for that report to contain some remarks about things that the Electoral Commissioner regards as areas that might be looked at for improvement or change, or whatever.

I think I made it clear before, but I would like to repeat it: it seems to me that when that is received, that would be the appropriate time for us to review what the Electoral Commissioner has to say. If, in so doing, other people have contributions to make—for example, the members for Stuart and Flinders both talked about problems with postal voting, particularly for people in remote areas—that sort of thing could be taken into account in a broader review.

What I am concerned about is that we will have this piece of legislation—which is quite discrete and which everyone agrees with—perhaps held up in a parliamentary committee of the upper house, which will inquire into this but not into the matters which, in due course, will be subject of comment, perhaps, by the Electoral Commissioner. I think the sensible way forward would be to get these two pieces of simple legislative change fixed and on the books—so from my point of view I will have discharged my responsibility to make good on an election promise—but also incorporate any opinions, questions or matters of other broader reforms to the Electoral Act at a time when the Electoral Commissioner herself has advised all of us about what she thinks should happen. As I said, that goes not only for the remarks of the member Fisher, who identified a number of matters of concern to him, but also for those of the members of Flinders and Stuart, who raised very important points about postal voting which need to be considered.

The only other matter I would refer to, and I guess I probably should not, but the member for Bragg, in making some very complimentary remarks about the current opposition candidate for the federal seat of Adelaide, took a little trip down recent electoral history and spoke about things that were going on in the seat of Enfield in the last election. It is true that the then candidate for Enfield put out some material in the seat saying that the sitting member had described himself in terms of: 'I usually sit here...not really expecting to have to say anything.'

Unfortunately, neither Mr Westley, nor those who work with him, appreciate the concept of irony. To fill out 'irony' a little bit, they might care to have a look at the Hansard of Thursday 7 April 2005. All they have to do is go on to the next couple of sentences to see that, if I do say so myself, it was one of my better efforts. I say:

I usually sit here quietly, not really expecting to have to say anything. Then something marvellous happens, such as the member for Bright—

the former member for Bright—

making another one of his magnificent contributions on the subject of the national electricity market, and I have to say that I always enjoy listening to the member for Bright when he talks on the subject of electricity.

The Hon. Peter Lewis then said:

It is shocking, isn't it?

And everyone agreed with that. I then made the point, relating to the then member for Bright:

What a magnificent thing to hide behind: a brazen outrageous attack on something of which you are, in fact, the author. Who else but the member for Bright could conceive such an audacious plan and put it into place? But [there it is] he has done it again.

I did not think that was a bad contribution, and quite accurate in respect of him. It just shows you that lifting little bits out and moving them around can produce odd results. Member for Bragg, it is annoying to have these things quoted back at us, I know, but in the end, what does it matter? If they are accurate, so be it.

The only thing I would say—again, in relation to the question of what is a fair and accurate representation—is that this is a broader question. The member for Fisher has touched on it, to some extent, in his question about this fellow claiming to be a local councillor when, in fact, he was not a councillor in the member for Fisher's area. The candidate in Enfield claimed to be a third generation resident of Enfield, and in another publication, fourth generation. It turns out that until about 18 months before the election he lived in Blackwood, or Happy Valley, or somewhere.

So, these things happen quite often. I can understand why people get annoyed with them, but this is something that we will need to consider after the Electoral Commissioner has brought forward her report. She has had to listen to all of the complaints from everybody throughout the whole of this election about what everyone thinks is misrepresentation or unfair. She is in the best position to give us an overall view of what sort of complaints were there.

I can indicate to members, and others may have had this problem, that I had material which had been produced two years before the election which simply had my name and my office address and phone number on it which was seen during the election period. The material had been produced years before but it did not have the postal address. Members would be aware that when material is to be sitting around the place it has to have a postal address, not a PO box, and so forth. These are some of the requirements.

The only point I make is that the way the laws are presently standing, you could put out a calendar now, for example, and if a silly interpretation was taken of it, in four years' time if that calendar is still on someone's fridge and it has a PO box for you and not your address, somebody might complain about it. Obviously, it would be silly for the Electoral Commissioner to waste her time on that, but these are little matters which will need to be finetuned after the Electoral Commissioner has had a chance to digest all of the material.

If I can just finish up by saying what I started to say. I appreciate the support of the member for Fisher and his withdrawal of the amendment. I understand why he put in the amendment. I have sympathy for the proposition he is putting, but I do not think this is the time or the opportunity for that to be addressed.

I thank all the members of the opposition for their support, and I would simply say to them, to the extent that my wishes in the matter make any difference, can we please just get this legislation passed? Do whatever you wish to do or need to do through your colleagues in the other place in that committee, but let us look at a proper comprehensive review of the legislation after the Electoral Commissioner has had an opportunity to provide a report, because, after all, the Electoral Commissioner is an impartial individual who should be in the best position to at least give us some neutral guidance about these matters, and let us then have a debate about whatever you wish to have a debate about.

These matters are quite discrete. They are matters about which there is no dispute between the government and it would appear the opposition. I appreciate the support of the opposition and I hope these matters go through quickly, and, in due course, as I said, if a broader debate about the electoral act needs to occur, then, by all means, let it occur, but that is a matter that I think logically should await the report from the Electoral Commissioner.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.


At 17:42 the house adjourned until Wednesday 30 June 2010 at 11:00.

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