HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 September 2009. Page 3068.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (11:04): I assume that no-one else wishes to speak to the second reading. As I wait for my advisers to arrive I take this opportunity to thank the members who contributed to the debate.

Obviously, electoral bills lead to highly-spirited debates within any parliament. We have seen, down the ages, many amendments to electoral acts, such as some of the infamous gerrymanders that we had up to the 1960s or, in Queensland, for a much longer time. Whenever changes were made to make the electoral legislation fairer and to provide one vote one value, for example—which has been a key objective of the Australian Labor Party for many years—there were always contentious debates and always many reasons, particularly in the upper house, about why that should not occur.

Indeed, when I first joined the Australian Labor Party (35 or 40 years ago), one of the things we were doing at the time was trying to enrol people to vote for the Legislative Council which then had a property franchise. At the first election where I was able to vote, I was unable to vote for the Legislative Council because it had a property franchise. That is how quickly voting can change over the course of a few generations in one's lifetime.

In relation to the proposal being put forward (and regarding some of the arguments that have suggested self-interest and so on, in relation to changes to the Electoral Act), the fact is that our electoral system has been evolving over many decades and there have been some changes to the Electoral Act that brought fairness—for example, the principle of one vote one value—that were very strongly opposed in the past.

The particular measure before us does not go quite to the extent of the fundamental changes that we have made in the past because I believe that, by and large, our electoral system, at least since the major reforms made in the 1970s, has served us pretty well. However, there are always changes in technology—for example, there have certainly been changes in communications since this government was elected 7½ years ago. There have been significant changes in the media, for example, and the importance of relevant sections of the media and what impact that has on election campaigns and the like.

There is always a need to update legislation. The scenario in which elections are conducted is continually changing due to technologies, and that is why we have this bill before us: to update the Electoral Act in relation to those important changes. Of course, there will always be those who will argue that some of the measures changed do not particularly advantage them and, therefore, they will argue that they cannot be fair. However, I will just remind members that, if one were to go back over the past century and a half, people argued all sorts of things, such as that women should not get the right to vote, that we should retain a property franchise, and so on. I think that many of the comments made on this bill will join the history of both those arguments as not being particularly convincing.

Certainly, from this government's point of view, we need to change the Electoral Act to update provisions. I am certainly happy to get to the committee stage to argue the merits of the particular changes that we seek to make. With those broad comments, I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: By way of a question on clause 2, can the minister indicate when it is proposed to commence operation of this bill if, indeed, it comes into operation? What is the government's intention regarding staggering the introduction, given that clause 2 provides that certain sections must be brought into operation on the same day and others need not be brought into operation on that day?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is the government's intention, obviously, to bring this bill into operation before the next election, otherwise we would not be debating it at this time. However, we will need to consult with the state Electoral Commissioner in relation to whether any part of this bill may need to be delayed until after the election. Obviously, we will have to speak to the state Electoral Commissioner about that but, by and large, it is the intention that this bill would be in place by (and presumably well before) March next year. Obviously, it will depend on its passage through this chamber. While we are still on clause 1, I am waiting for some advice on matters which have been raised and which I was hoping to put into my second reading response. If I can have the indulgence of the committee, I will put them on the record now.

The Hon. Robert Lawson asked why the government was increasing penalties for offences under sections 112, 113, 114 and 115. As he correctly noted, some of the increases are considerable. The former electoral commissioner recommended an increase in the penalty for section 113 in his 1997 and 2002 election reports. The proposed increases to $5,000 and $25,000 were included in the former government's 2001 bill. The government has included those increases in its bill.

As to the other penalty increase, like section 113, the penalties for offences under sections 112, 114 and 115 have not been increased since the legislation was first enacted. The government took the decision to increase these penalties as well. As to the extent of the increase, the government thinks the new penalties are appropriate but would be happy to consider alternative penalties if the Hon. Mr Lawson cares to put some up.

The Hon. Mr Lawson asked whether the same members can be relied upon by two parties seeking registration under the act. The answer is in new section 36(3), which provides:

(3) for the purpose of this part, two or more political parties cannot rely on the same member for the purpose of qualifying or continuing to qualify as an eligible political party.

I should flag that the government will be moving amendments to clarify that subsection (3) applies to both elector members and members of parliament. By flagging it, the government is looking at it, following section 36; so, we will obviously have to have those amendments tabled and discussed before we get to that point. I assume that that will be some time in the future, so we will deal with that when we come to it or, if necessary, we can recommit. I think that it is an important point that has come out of the matters raised by the honourable member.

The Hon. Mr Lawson also asked whether the same members can be relied upon in the registration of a subsidiary party. Subsection (3) applies to any party seeking registration. The Hon. Mr Lawson asked three questions in relation to compulsory enrolment. His questions were:

1. What are the current figures in relation to the level of enrolment in this state?

2. What measures has the government been taking to date to meet that objective of the Strategic Plan?

3. What progress has been made in relation to it?

The Hon. Mr Lawson referred to the State Strategic Plan target. This target relates to the enrolment of 18 and 19 year olds. As to question No. 1, the Electoral Commissioner has provided the following figures. For 18 to 19 year olds, as at 30 June 2009, there were 26,410 enrolled to vote in South Australia. This represents 67 per cent of the eligible estimated resident population (ERP) of 18 to 19 year olds in South Australia as at 30 June 2008.

For 18 to 19 year olds, as at 30 June 2009, there were 367,655 enrolled to vote in Australia. This represents 68.3 per cent of the eligible estimated resident population of 18 to 19 year olds in Australia as at 30 June 2008; so, in South Australia, it is 67 per cent, and Australia-wide it is 68.3 per cent.

Of the total persons enrolled who are greater than 18 years of age, as at 30 June 2009 there were 1,086,962 persons enrolled to vote in South Australia. This represents 87 per cent of the total ERP of South Australians aged 18 years or more. As at 30 June 2009, there were 13,891,788 persons aged 18 years and over enrolled to vote in Australia. This represents 84.5 per cent of the total ERP of Australians aged 18 years or more.

As to question No. 2, the commissioner advises that her office undertakes a range of enrolment strategies to maintain an up-to-date and accurate electoral roll. These include strategies targeted to encourage persons to enrol for the first time (for example, youth and new citizens), and also to encourage other electors to keep their address details on the roll up to date.

Many of the strategies are undertaken in partnership with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). The strategies over the past 12 months have included: an ongoing program of distributing and collecting enrolment forms through the Residential Tenancy Tribunal; field investigations and continuous roll update activities by the AEC; the matching of data from state and federal agencies (for example, Transport SA, Australia Post and Centrelink) against the electoral roll by the AEC to allow the targeting of electors who have moved; attendance at citizenship ceremonies by the AEC; and attendance at targeted events by the Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) and the AEC, such as the royal show. I am advised that at present there is a stand at the show that is encouraging electoral enrolment. There are also university orientation days. All of these events raise enrolment awareness and encourage new enrolments and updates.

Other strategies over the past 12 months have included forwarding birthday cards and enrolment forms to persons on the SACE database who are turning 17 and 18 years old, to encourage new enrolments, as well as a presentation on the commission's website of information about elections and the importance of voting, including the interactive educational software called 'The Power of Voting'. The commission has also engaged an advertising agency to undertake a major advertising campaign in the lead-up to the March 2010 state election. This campaign will include a strong 'need to enrol' message to encourage people to enrol for the first time or update their enrolment details.

Regarding the third question, the commission advises that, considering the figures as at June 2004 that I mentioned for the proportion of eligible 18 and 19 year olds enrolled to vote in that table, 60 per cent of eligible young South Australians 18 to 19 years old were enrolled to vote compared to 68.6 per cent nationally. From the 2004 base, the proportion of eligible 18 and 19 year olds enrolled to vote in South Australia increased to above the national figure in 2005 and 2006, reflecting increased enrolment activity in South Australia associated with the March 2006 state election.

In the lead-up to the November 2007 federal election, the number of 18 to 19 year olds enrolled nationally increased significantly, resulting in the proportion of young people enrolled in South Australia falling to slightly below the national level as at 30 June 2007. While the proportion of young people enrolled to vote as at June 2009 remained below the national level, youth enrolments in South Australia are expected to increase during 2009-10 in response to advertising and other initiatives leading up to the state election—as well as just a general awareness of it, one presumes. These promotional activities are also expected to prompt an increase in enrolments across all age groups.

I believe the Hon. Mr Lawson was the only member to ask questions during his second reading contribution, so I trust I have answered them all. If not, we will deal with them during the committee stage. As honourable members would be aware, both the Hon. Mr Winderlich and the Hon. Mr Parnell have placed amendments on file. We will address those during the committee stage; however, I believe it is appropriate to advise that the government will oppose all non-government amendments.

Clauses passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 4, after line 2—Insert:

(1) Section 4(1), definition of elector—delete '18 years' and substitute:

16 years

This is a test amendment for a number of others, all of which relate to the question of entitlement to vote. My amendment proposes that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote on a voluntary basis. I preface my remarks by reminding members that voting is both a right and an obligation; in this amendment I propose to make voting a right but not an obligation for 16 and 17 year olds.

Under the current Electoral Act, a person is entitled to be enrolled, and therefore able to vote, if they are an Australian citizen and they live here. There is another interesting criterion, and it is that the person is not of unsound mind; that is, at the date they enrol. However, interestingly, a person's entitlement to vote is conclusively proved by them being on the roll; presumably, if you are of sound mind once you reach the age of 18 and you enrol, regardless of what happens to you subsequently—through old age, mental illness, or whatever—your right to vote is never taken away from you. I do not propose to alter that regime.

We could say, in terms of democratic principles, that some harm is done by having people vote who are not of sound mind, but that is the price that most of us are prepared to pay. I just put that into the mix for good measure, because we have no test of competency: you do not have to be interested in politics or engaged in public affairs to be able to vote; you do not even have to fully understand what is going on. So, potentially there is some harm done to the democratic process, but I am not proposing to change that. What I am proposing is that a proportion of the population that is fully engaged—that is, interested—and who wants to have a say in their future should be allowed to do so.

The 16 and 17 year olds of today are far more engaged, far more politically literate, and far more connected with their world than 16 and 17 year olds were in years gone by. That is largely, but not entirely, a function of modern methods of communications, including the internet. It is a rare 16 or 17 year old who is not on Facebook or involved with various interest groups in assorted electronic ways.

It has been the Greens policy for some time that engaged young people should be allowed to vote if they want to, and that is why I have moved this amendment today. I note that the Hon. David Winderlich has similar amendments in relation to local government elections, and that will be dealt with later. However, for now, and in terms of state elections, I believe we need to empower the youth of today, who will inherit the decisions made through the political process. We should empower them and enable them to vote but not make it compulsory. We can leave that until a person turns 18.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment reduces the enrolment age from 18 to 16, and the government opposes it. As the amendment is part of a series, the other amendments—Nos 10, 11, 12, 17, 22 and 23—in the honourable member's name are related to this, so I suggest that this should be treated as a test amendment.

The government believes that the enrolment age is appropriately fixed at 18. This is the age of majority and the age of enrolment under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and it is also the age of enrolment under the Local Government (Elections) Act (and I know that the Hon. Mr Winderlich has indicated that he will look at changing that when we debate that bill). It is the government's view that 18 is the appropriate age. There are measures for provisional enrolment to ensure that someone who turns 18 before an election date—at any time, I am advised—can vote. So, provided they turn 18 before the election date then those provisions exist to allow for those sorts of examples, and it is the government's view that we do cater for those situations. However, the government does not support reducing the age from 18.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that we will be supporting the government on this. We have already seen, in more recent years, the voting age come down from 21 to 18. We do have a situation, as the Leader of the Government has pointed out, where people can—and I know that a lot do—register at 17 so that when the next election comes up they can vote. So, there are opportunities for people to get ready before they turn 18.

I think we are sending out some very weird and unusual messages to the community. We hear debate regularly in both chambers about more parental responsibility being required until young people are recognised as adults. We have people saying that the drinking age should be increased from 18 to 21, and there are people saying that you should not get a licence at 16 years of age. We have amendments being proposed for all these things to protect young people, but we are told that suddenly they have all these worldly experiences and should be able to vote at 16 or 17. We do not agree with that and we will be supporting the government.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment. I think the committee needs to consider that, although there are some mature 16 and 17 year olds who are engaged, there is a time and a place in the future for our children to become involved in the big decisions in running the state and who is going to govern this state.

I take exception to the fact that we are pushing our children to grow up way too soon and take on the responsibility of adults. Let them enjoy their adolescence. I know that it is not compulsory, but there is peer group pressure out there, and there is a recruitment process that adolescents go through.

If they are eligible to vote at 16, does that also mean that they are then eligible to stand for office? I am not quite clear on that. I think that was a question raised by local government as well. If that is the case—and I am not saying that it is, but I would like that checked—do we want 16 year olds with the possibility of being elected to parliament? I am not saying that I do not trust 16 year olds; I trust 16 year olds to make the decisions of a 16 year old.

If it is the case that they could actually stand for a position in parliament at 16, if they are voting at 16, we could have a situation where we have two or three 16 year olds in either house debating the state budget, or debating issues on child protection, drugs or whatever. Quite frankly, I do not believe that a 16 year old—and psychologists will back this up—has the mental capacity or the psychological or emotional development to be able to make those kinds of decisions in a well fashioned and well informed way. I wonder how many of us, at our mature age now, have the same views that we did at 16.

The Hon. M. Parnell: The minister does.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: How do you know?

The Hon. M. Parnell: He said before that he was enrolled with the Labor Party before he could vote.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: So? That is very different to being able to vote.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: We have the Youth Parliament, and they come in here and they are involved in that process, and I think that is a healthy thing. At 16 they are still children, so we should do things by gradients and allow them that experience and learning time, and whatever, before we try to push them into the adult world too early.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Perhaps I should make sure that my position is clarified. Changes were made to the Legislative Council in the early 1970s. Up until that stage, a property franchise had applied, so that unless you were a property owner you could not vote for the Legislative Council. So, I was talking about a big campaign to enrol those people who were property owners, to try to change that.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It was also voluntary.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, it was voluntary; that is right. In fact, many people did not want to get on the roll because it was used to choose jurors. So, if you did not want to be involved in jury duty, you did not enrol. Fortunately, we have moved on from those days. In answer to the Hon. Ann Bressington, my advice is that you have to be on the electoral roll to stand for election. So, clearly, if you changed the age so that you could be on the electoral roll at an earlier age then you could stand for election at that particular age. In effect, if you were to change the age at which you were on the roll then you would be changing the age at which you could stand for election.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that the Liberal Party does not support reducing the voting age to 16. Our position is based on, first, a uniformity of provisions, a uniformity as between states, but, more particularly, between the commonwealth and the state, and also consistency. We have an age of majority, which is 18, and 18 is the age at which, under current laws, persons have full citizenship, and we believe that is appropriate.

I challenge the assumption under which this claim is made by the honourable member where he says that younger people are far more connected than previous generations. I do not know on what basis he makes that claim.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Well, he says he has teenagers, as have many of us in this chamber, but that does not enable us to say that those in the forties, fifties, sixties or seventies were any less connected with their community than younger people are today. The latest report of the state Electoral Office says that it sends out material through SSABSA with enrolment forms to all year 12 students. It sends out these enrolment forms within the year 12 results packs. This goes to all year 12 graduates. As a result, the office received 132 new enrolments. I would not have thought 132 new enrolments, from sending out that sort of invitation, really suggests huge interest on the part of younger people.

There is also a birthday card program which our office conducts in association, I believe, with the Australian Electoral Commission. Since the commencement of that program in June 2007, 13,159 cards were mailed out, as a result of which it received responses from 2,896, a return rate of 22 per cent. Once again, that does not indicate to me, even at the age of 18, that there is huge interest in enrolment. I would ask the minister to put on the record now, if he has the information, or later if not, the number of 17 year olds now applying for provisional enrolment. That is a fair indication of the degree of interest that might be generated amongst 16 and 17 year olds.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What was the question?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The number of 17 year olds who are presently seeking or obtaining provisional enrolment and details regarding that. I believe I have seen that information contained in some publication of the Electoral Office, but I do not have it to hand.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We do not have the information to hand, but we can get it. As I have already indicated, there are a couple of technical amendments that we are hoping to file very soon but we will obviously have to revisit those. I cannot expect people to get a view on them quickly but I would not want to hold up the debate, so we will certainly be revisiting this issue after today and I will make sure we get that information for the honourable member at the earliest opportunity.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. This goes a little further than voting in local government elections but, in the interests of progressing the debate, I am inclined to support it. It is also longstanding Democrat policy. I will just briefly recap on the reasons why I support it and then deal with some of the objections.

In relation to the ability of young people to vote, I think it is very mixed. In some ways they have much higher levels of education than the average population had at that age 30 or 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago. In other ways, of course, they have less life experience, although only slightly less life experience than an 18 year old. The ability to vote at the age of 16 already occurs in a number of countries, as I mentioned in my remarks on the local government elections bill yesterday—in Brazil, Nicaragua and Cuba and at local government levels in some states in the United States, and in some states in Germany—so there are countries that do this.

As I said when I was discussing the local government elections bill, 16 year olds are well on the way although not entirely moving into adult life. They are moving out of home more and more, they are moving into activities where they are using greater independence and where they are subject to greater regulation in terms of going out and clubbing, starting to drive and working and so forth. They are already becoming enmeshed in the adult world.

I think the other reason to think about extending this measure is that older generations have always been anxious about younger generations. They are regularly the subject of what is widely called in the sociological literature 'moral panics' where we worry about what they are drinking, what they are eating, too much sex, too much this, too much that, gangs, violence and so forth. As I said, some of those concerns are valid and entirely legitimate for older generations to have, whereas some of them are becoming irrational and hysterical and just forgetting what it was like to be young once. It is a bit of a mixture but, given that we are spending more and more effort and it makes better and better media to regulate young people, I am inclined to want to give young people more of a say.

Dealing with some of the objections, I point out that this is optional. The Hon. Mr Lawson said only 132 young people reacted to a mail-out from SSABSA. I think in a way that is not an argument against that measure: it is an argument for it. We are not going to get a flood of 16 year olds who are going to get off Facebook and stop texting and start to get engaged in politics. It is going to be a very small minority of what most people would call 'geeks' who would become interested; and if they are interested in following the issues, then I say: why not let them, and why not start to engage that group of younger people in political debate and discussion?

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Bookish.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Bookish young people? I think we had an indication about one 16 year old; I think the Hon. Mr Finnigan is saying that in his heart of hearts he actually supports this measure, because at the age of 16 he would have loved to be out there voting and probably running for parliament. It is self selecting.

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer: And Don Farrell agrees.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Don Farrell would have liked to do this at 16 too, let me tell you; possibly six. I think that, in relation to 16 year olds in parliament, that is an interesting question; that is more difficult and raises some issues. On the one hand they would be distracted by hormones, Facebook, texting and whatnot; on the other hand, 16 year old parliamentarians would be less distracted by wine tastings, so they may be better able to concentrate on parliament in other ways. In conclusion, this is voluntary. It will involve only a very small number of young people. It is a way of starting to engage them, and I say: why not?

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: The right to vote in a democratic country is a great privilege, and all great privilege brings with it great responsibility. I am fascinated by a group of people who would extend the age at which a young person can have a drivers licence because they are not considered responsible and because they are easily diverted by their peers, yet they would confer on them the right to vote and, with the right to vote, the implication that they have full adult rights at the age of 16. These are the very same people who we do not believe are responsible enough to have a drink in a hotel; we do not believe they are responsible enough to drive a car on their own, yet they are responsible enough to have influence on the government of the day. It seems to me to be a very long bow to draw.

Then I listen to the fact that we would allow them to vote but we would not allow them to stand for parliament. One either has a privilege and a right or one does not have a privilege and a right. At no time has that occurred; even with women's suffrage or the rights of Aboriginal people, who as I understand it were recognised initially in this country as having the right to vote, so they also had the right to stand. It seems to me that this is at best and at my kindest a very strange amendment to move in a state which is moving further and further down the path of requiring young people to be older before they take on both responsibility and privilege.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not detain the committee long. I have heard the contributions of honourable members, and I will not be dividing on this; it is a test for another six amendments. I want to respond very briefly to some of the remarks that have been made. I was most interested to hear the Hon. Rob Brokenshire being very concerned about the mixed messages we give our young people. I look forward, next time we have a debate about treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system, to seeing the Hon. Rob Brokenshire keen for them to hang on to their youth and be treated as children until their age of majority is reached. I am looking forward to that change in the honourable member's party's position.

The Hon. Ann Bressington raised the issue that, if we allow them to enrol, they can vote and presumably they can then stand for office, and that would be the case. She raised the horror of young people making decisions on the state budget. I can tell you—and it would be a pretty remarkable situation—that if a 16 year old were elected to our parliament they would be taking things like climate change more seriously, because they will be living into the 2070s and 2080s to see the consequences of it. I guess it is a philosophical question: would an engaged 16 year old make worse decisions than the older folk who are already here? I think that in many cases they would not.

The Hon. Robert Lawson talked about the lack of enthusiasm that young people have for advance enrolment. I can understand that: if you cannot vote until you are 18 there is not a great imperative to enrol at 17. Finally, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer raised the interesting question about other ages at which we allow people to do things. My understanding is that you can drive in a car by yourself with no-one sitting next to you at the age of 16 years and nine months, and the question would have to be: are young people driving cars at 16 by themselves causing more harm than a 16 year old would by voting in a state election? I can tell you where the harm is being done: it is in our young people killing themselves and others on our roads. As I have said, I hear the opinions of the committee. I will not be dividing on this, but it is an important issue, and I dare say we will be returning to it in the future.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Just one point I would make in response to the Hon. Mr Parnell's remarks. Obviously, 18 is an average age that we pick. Our law should be uniform, and we should pick an age that applies if voters reach a certain age. It should be uniform and fair, and it should apply to all people, but we know that individually people will reach maturity at different levels. Of course, at a younger age some people will be more mature and more capable of exercising not only their vote but also all other things they might be able to do. The honourable member talks about criminality. There are some individuals who at 15 and 16 may well be hardened criminals, and that is why we allow for dealing with those particular cases by having them treated as adults, because in that sense they are behaving like adults. Of course, that is why we have that provision.

I do not think that the argument used by the Hon. Mr Parnell that, just because we treat some juveniles who have particularly bad criminal records as adults, this has some parallel with setting an average age at which voting applies is a good argument.

Clearly, in one case, we are trying to pick an age where most young people will be able to responsibly exercise their vote and, in the other case, we are dealing with a particular group of hardened criminals, and I do not think the argument used by the Hon. Mr Parnell in that case really holds any water at all.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I pointed out in my earlier remarks a relatively low return rate in relation to the Electoral Office's attempts to secure enrolments from 18 year olds. I would not want that to be interpreted as in any way a criticism of the State Electoral Office or the Australian Electoral Commission. In fact, I commend them for their efforts to increase the proportion of 18 to 19 year olds. I think when we get nearer to 100 per cent of 18 to 19 year olds, we could then consider reducing the voting age.

I also want to commend the State Electoral Office for adopting a particular software module which is designed to stimulate and encourage the youth sector. Called 'The Power of Voting', I would like the committee to note that it received an international award—best in class in the education section—in the United States.

I also note from the latest annual report of the commission that it is investigating options to send SMS text messages to young people to remind them to enrol prior to the next state election. As I say, the report said they were investigation options. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether those investigations have led to any decision being made by the Electoral Office in relation to the use of SMS technology to encourage enrolment and voting. I am referring to the Electoral Office's proposal to use SMS technology to encourage enrolment and also to encourage younger people to vote. This is referred to in its latest annual report. I am asking the minister to indicate to the committee whether there have been any developments or decisions made in relation to the use of that technology.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the Electoral Commission is still investigating this new technology and looking at what is happening in other parts of this country and also, I believe, in New Zealand and elsewhere. That is ongoing.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 4, after line 2—Insert:

(1) Section 4(1), definition of how-to-vote card—delete ', in the form of a ballot paper,'

This amendment is a very minor one (at least in wordage) but is associated with a very big concept. It would amend Part 1 of the act, section 4, interpretation, by deleting the words 'in the form of a ballot paper' in the second paragraph on page 2 of the act. It currently reads:

How-to-vote card means a card, in the form of a ballot paper, indicating the manner in which a particular candidate or group of candidates suggest that a vote should be recorded by a voter.

The point of this—and, in a way, I guess this is a test case, as well, for other amendments—is that it relates to moving to the Robson Rotation. As everyone would be aware, currently candidates can draw first position on a ballot paper and that gives them the donkey vote advantage, which is estimated to be worth up to 2 per cent. The Robson Rotation randomises that process so that ballot papers are printed out in a way that no one candidate always ends up in the No. 1 position. So, the donkey vote probably does not disappear but it is dissipated. This is obviously a fairer system which means that all candidates are on the same footing.

The change in wording is because the words 'in the form of a ballot paper' is in the singular form and the Robson Rotation would mean that there would be a variety of ballot papers. As I said, the actual change itself appears simple but is related to quite a different concept in terms of how we produce ballot papers.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I indicated earlier, the government was opposed to these amendments, but this amends the definition of 'how-to-vote card' so that it is no longer limited to cards that are in the form of a ballot paper. I understand that it is consequential upon amendments 11 and 28 filed by the Hon. Mr Winderlich—and I believe that amendment No.15 is also part of the series. The government suggests that we should use this as a test amendment.

Amendments Nos 11 and 28 implement what is known as the Robson Rotation (as the Hon. Mr Winderlich has just told us) under which ballot papers must be printed in batches so that the name of each candidate has an equal chance of appearing at prescribed advantageous positions on the ballot paper. Currently, section 60 of the act requires the order of names on the ballot papers for the House of Assembly to be determined by lots. All ballot papers are the same.

Amendment No. 11 in the name of the Hon. Mr Winderlich amends section 60 to delete this requirement and replace it with a requirement that the order be determined in accordance with new schedule 1 of the act and, under schedule 1, inserted by the Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendment No. 28, the order of the first batch of papers is still to be determined by lot. The second subsequent batches will be as prescribed. There must be printed in respect of each favoured position a batch of ballot papers on which the candidate's name appears in each favoured position. The number of ballot papers in each batch must be even. Where there are six or more candidates, the name of one candidate cannot appear immediately above the name of another candidate in more than one batch if both would be in a favoured position. Ballot papers must, under amended section 60, be distributed randomly.

Although at first glance that might appear attractive, the Robson Rotation greatly complicates the electoral process. First, multiple variations of the ballot paper have to be printed. This renders how-to-vote cards—on which many electors rely—useless, as there are multiple variations of the ballot paper that place the candidates in different orders, and these are handed out randomly.

Counting the ballot papers is also much more time-consuming, as officials have to contend with multiple variations to the ballot paper and this, of course, makes the whole election process more expensive. As someone who has scrutineered at many elections, I suggest that, if ballot papers are put in particular piles, it certainly creates the chance for more errors. It is much easier to check them when they are all in the one position. For these reasons, the government opposes the implementation of the Robson Rotation. As I have said, I believe that we should use this as a test case.

I suppose this relates to a donkey vote. Again, as someone who has observed and scrutineered at many elections over a long period of time, I do not believe that the donkey vote, as it is called, is necessarily as significant as is often suggested. You can determine that when you have minor party candidates in the higher positions. Whereas it was once considered that a lot of people just go in and vote down the card, in this day and age, with all the extra information—and it will be interesting to see whether any academic studies verify this—certainly in my view, the so-called donkey vote, which this is meant to address, is much smaller than it has been in the past.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that Liberal members will not be supporting the introduction of the Robson Rotation system as foreshadowed in this amendment. To take up the point just raised by the minister, it is true that the Robson Rotation was designed to eliminate the donkey vote effect. It was also designed to get rid of how-to-vote cards because, of course, it is not possible in a full preferential system to have how-to-vote cards printed when one does not know in advance the particular ballot paper an elector will have in front of him or her.

I agree with the minister's observation that the question of the donkey vote is, I think, a reducing factor and could mean a great deal of political science work done on its effect, but my understanding is that, over time, the donkey vote has significantly diminished. I do not know of any recent case in South Australian history where it could really be claimed that the result of an election was changed by reason of the fact that an unduly high proportion of voters simply voted down the card.

We in the Liberal Party also believe that how-to-vote cards are an important part of the electoral process. True it is that they are expensive to produce and that many thousands of volunteers are necessary to hand them out. The organisation of polling booths, and the like, because of how-to-vote cards is a significant factor. We happen to believe that it is actually an important part of the political process and of the activity of people who are interested in being involved in the process.

We are not convinced that there is any need to adopt the Robson Rotation in South Australia. I think it is true to say that it was introduced in Tasmania and, other than in that state, I think it is used only in the Australian Capital Territory. We also believe that it is appropriate to provide assistance to electors. As any of us who man polling booths know, many electors want a how-to-vote card; they need a how-to-vote card. They want to know how the particular party they support is suggesting they vote.

There are some, of course—I think actually an increasing number—who walk by and brush past those handing out how-to-vote cards. They do not want them. Whether they have already made their decision, whether they are determined to vote informal or not vote at all, is not a matter on which we can really speculate. We believe that how-to-vote cards are an important part of our process, and we will not be supporting the Robson Rotation.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens support the Robson Rotation. In fact, we use this method in all our internal ballots. The reason for it is that we want to remove any element of luck or chance that devalues the deliberative nature of the voting process. We can argue about whether the donkey vote is real or imaginary, but we have been talking about it for decades. Every commentator I have ever heard ascribes a value to the donkey vote, and that means that it is a non-deliberative vote—someone has not even thought about it. My view and the view of the Greens is that, if someone has not thought about it, that lack of thought should be spread equally amongst all the candidates rather than it benefitting the person who is lucky enough to be on the top.

The Hon. Robert Lawson referred to providing assistance to voters to help them make their free choice. The most important thing, of course, was the introduction of the names of parties next to candidates on the ballot paper. That overwhelmingly is the most important reform to help people know how they want to vote.

The other point to make is that, whilst the Robson Rotation makes the handing out of how-to-vote cards perhaps a little more difficult in that they need to be structured differently to make sense to voters, it does not outlaw them; so it would still be possible to stand at the polling booth and give voters a piece of paper telling them how you think they should vote. However, for the primary reason that the Robson Rotation removes randomness and luck from what should be a deliberative process, the Greens are supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Clause 4 will now create a new definition of 'voting ticket square'. It will provide that that expression means 'a square printed on a ballot paper for a Legislative Council election for use of voters'—and these are the words that I query—'who choose to vote in accordance with a voting ticket or voting tickets that have been registered under this act in relation to a candidate or group.'

I query the appropriateness of the expression 'who choose to vote in accordance with a voting ticket or voting tickets'. That is a false assumption. Simply the fact that a person prints '1' alongside a particular candidate does not, in my view, literally mean that that person has chosen to vote in accordance with a voting ticket. The effect of their vote is that they are voting in accordance with a voting ticket, but they have not necessarily chosen to vote. I query the use of that expression, and I ask the minister to explain why it is necessary to change this definition.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think it is probably a fairly semantic point raised by the honourable member. Probably in legal terms it would not make a lot of difference whether or not the word 'choose' was in there. I will try to indicate the reason that we have this particular clause within the bill.

As I understand it, when the Electoral Commission comes to print ballot papers, the names of those who nominate will appear with boxes beside them below the line, but it is not necessarily known who will be lodging voting tickets. Therefore, as the Electoral Commission obviously has to get ballot papers printed before a certain time, there is a bit of an issue if you are not sure that everyone is going to become registered so that they will appear above the line in the voting tickets. As I understand it, it is really just to deal with that particular timing issue that we have in this clause, and it is in turn consequential on other amendments.

As I understand it, we are trying to deal with a situation where someone might give notice at enrolment that they will lodge a ticket but they subsequently do not file or do not go through with it as they have indicated. That has the potential to create a problem. I believe later amendments essentially deal with that situation. So, if they give notice but do not take that course of action, we need to be able to deal with that situation in terms of printing ballot papers. It is a fairly technical issue.

I am not sure whether that was exactly the point raised by the Hon. Mr Lawson; he seemed to be suggesting more in terms of the semantics of it, and choosing or not choosing. Whether it was those who voted or who chose to vote is not really material to the intention of this clause.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I thank the minister for that explanation, but I am not sure whether I yet fully understand the reason for this amendment. The expression 'that have been registered', a voting ticket or tickets that have been registered, seems to indicate that there must be a formally registered ticket, not simply an indication of an intention to register. The expression 'that have been registered' already exists in the current definition of voting ticket square, so I cannot understand, from the minister's explanation, what change is being made to the current process or definition. What changes are being wrought by this provision?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it simply updates the definition. If the honourable member wishes to clarify it, the government is happy to consider any suggestion. We do not believe it is significant in terms of what it does in the Electoral Act. The more substantive issues that the government is attempting to deal with are covered in clauses 19, 21 and 34. It is seen in conjunction with that, but I guess we would have to look at it more closely to see whether the previous definition created some problem in relation to those three clauses. The advice I have is that it is simply updating it; however, as I said, if the honourable member wishes to do so we can revisit it.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I indicated earlier, the government does have some technical amendments, and one relates to clause 5. I apologise that they were not available earlier; I will table them now.

I do not expect that members will necessarily have a position on this, and I think the sensible course would be that, if there were problems with it, we could recommit. However, I do not want to hold up the rest of the debate, so I indicate that the government will move a technical amendment to clause 5, which will be circulated shortly. This amendment corrects a minor drafting error.

Clause 5(4) places conditions around the provision of electoral rolls to members of parliament, to registered parties, and now to nominated candidates under new subsection (2). Amendments in the lower house inserted a new subsection (3), which addressed concerns about redistributions. Where the Boundaries Commission has made a decision on boundaries where the boundaries of a district are to be altered to include any part of another district, new subsection (3) entitles a House of Assembly member or a nominated candidate to an up-to-dated copy of the roll for that other district.

Subsection (4) currently refers only to subsection (2), not subsection (3), so this amendment adds a reference to subsection (3). It is a very technical definition that needs to be corrected. It has now been circulated, but if members want to consider it later I am happy to do that through recommittal. It is a very technical and, I would have thought, straightforward amendment, but I am happy to put it in the hands of the committee.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Alternatively, we could postpone clause 5.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am happy to continue with the debate on clause 5. I am grateful for the minister's indication that this will be recommitted if necessary, in light of the government's amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 4, line 22 [clause 5(3), inserted subsection (2)(d)]—Delete 'is a nominated' and substitute: intends to be a

I advise the committee that this is effectively a test clause for my amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and, I think, 9. Clause 5 seeks to amend section 26. Section 26 goes to the question of who is entitled to look at the electoral roll and who is entitled to a copy of the electoral roll, and it goes even further now because when we are talking about copies we are talking about hard copies and electronic copies.

Under the current act, copies of the electoral roll, in hard copy form, have to be made available for inspection, without a fee, by anyone at certain locations, including the Office of the Electoral Commissioner. Section 26 goes on to provide:

The Electoral Commissioner must make copies of the latest prints of the rolls available for purchase at prices [to be] determined by him or her.

So, the current position is that anyone is entitled to look at it and anyone is entitled to buy it. The government's changes propose to limit access to the electoral rolls. The clause, as presented to us, provides that when it comes to inspection the only change is that the Electoral Commissioner, presumably, can make a computer terminal available to someone to inspect the roll, but every citizen of South Australia is still entitled to go along and have a look at the electoral roll.

When it comes to people who are entitled to a copy of it, the amendment proposes to remove the current section 26(2), which enables any person to buy a copy of the roll, and replaces it with provisions which limit what I would say is physical access to the roll, or to your own copy of the roll—it limits it to members of parliament, registered political parties or people who have nominated as a candidate.

The purpose of my amendment is to broaden that list slightly to include people who intend, on their own claim, to be a candidate, rather than just those who have already nominated. The reason for that is that the nomination period, as we know, is fairly late in the electoral cycle. It is probably four weeks or so out from an election.

What that means is that an independent person intending to run for parliament will, under the government's provisions, not be able to gain access to the electoral roll, in terms of having their own copy of it, until the last month or so in the campaign, and that puts them at a considerable disadvantage to the other categories that the government is providing will have access to the roll, not just once-off but on a regular monthly basis, or perhaps even more frequently.

I should say at the outset that my amendment to allow for intending candidates to have access to the roll does not particularly affect my party, the Greens. We would have access anyway under the government's proposal, but I do have in mind Independents, who may wish to run for parliament and may wish to contact constituents, because that is really what we are talking about with the electoral roll: the ability to contact constituents. That ability would not be available to candidates, except for that final period once they have paid their deposit and lodged their nomination, and then they can have access to the roll.

My amendment proposes to broaden the scope. In some ways, if you like, it is a bit of a compromise between the status quo and what the government is proposing. Remember that the status quo is that anyone, whether or not they ever intend to be a candidate, is entitled to a copy of that roll; they can just go and buy it. What I am proposing is not open slather: I am proposing that a smaller group of people, that is, those who intend to be candidates—some of them might not end up being candidates, but they intend to—should also be able to access the roll.

The concern, obviously, that these amendments seek to address relates to misuse of the roll, in particular misuse for commercial purposes. I say that the solution to that is not restricting access to the roll: it is increasing the penalties for misuse. I have another amendment later on which basically seeks to increase the maximum penalty, which at present is a wholly inadequate $10,000, to at least $50,000. That is a more significant commercial deterrent.

I think that this is the wrong tool for the wrong job—what the government is proposing is to limit access—because it limits access to communications, and that is undemocratic. I would urge all honourable members who have a view to making our democracy as open as possible to allow this minor additional change to the government's own amendment, so that intending candidates also have access to those whom they seek to represent.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Before the minister answers, I would like to pose a question which is fundamental to these amendments. The bill, as it stands, refers to 'nominated candidate'. The Hon. Mr Parnell is assuming that a nominated candidate is somebody who is a candidate after nominations have actually been called for by the Electoral Commission in the formal process of election.

However, in political circles the expression 'nominated candidate' has a far wider connotation. We are already preselecting candidates for the forthcoming state election. They would regard themselves as nominated candidates. They have been endorsed by a political party as, indeed, other parties have nominated candidates. So, my question of the minister is: before we look at amending this, what is the advice of the government in relation to the meaning of the expression 'nominated candidate' in clause 5?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that 'nominated candidate' has to be read in terms of the act; that is, someone who has nominated for the election after the issue of the writ, so essentially it would apply only to that position. That is why we have concerns with the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment. This is the first of a series of amendments, the others being his amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6. Again, the government suggests that this be treated as a test amendment.

The Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments would mean that a person who intends to be a candidate at an election is entitled to receive the electronic roll updates under section 26. Currently, the bill requires a person to have nominated as a candidate. This argument has already been had in another place. The government's position was, and remains, that this would render section 26 so open to abuse that we might as well have no restrictions.

It would be impossible to enforce. Any person could claim, at any point after an election, that they intend contesting the next election as a candidate and would therefore become entitled to up-to-date copies of the roll. Come the next election, they could simply claim that they have changed their mind, and there is nothing that anyone could do about it. For that reason, we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In consideration of the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment to this clause, I am wondering whether the minister could advise the committee what evidence he has of misuse and abuse of the electoral roll. You get phone calls and correspondence from the commercial sector nearly every day. They seem to have so much opportunity to access names, addresses and general information on the community.

The Hon. Mr Lawson is talking about the Electoral Commission possibly text messaging those who are about to turn 18 and advising them that they can or should enrol. I question where they get that information from. If my children register with a mobile phone company, why all of a sudden should the Electoral Commissioner, or anyone else for that matter, have that information? I am not really sure about the wisdom behind this clause, and it has not been explained. What evidence is there of abuse and misuse?

My understanding is that as a citizen, when you register, you can be enrolled without it being published, so people do have an option. I ask the minister: what is behind this provision?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Essentially, the government is seeking to prevent any abuse in the use of the electoral roll. Obviously, it is compulsory to enrol, although of course there are certain exceptions. For people such as protected witnesses and all those sorts of special cases, there is an exemption but, by and large, the electoral roll is a very comprehensive piece of data on everyone living in the state which provides their address and the like. Obviously, with information of that detail, it is appropriate that it should be used appropriately.

There are really two strings to the government's bow, if you like, in how that might be done. The first of those is to try to put some restraints on the access to that information to those who have a genuine need for it. That is why we are opposing this amendment of the Hon. Mr Parnell: because it would essentially render that ineffective. You would lose the first level of protection, which is to put some restraint on access to those who have a legitimate need for it, and obviously members of parliament or the candidates in the various parties who would have access to it write to new electors and the like.

The second level of protection, which we deal with in later clauses of the bill, limits the use to which the electoral roll might be put. One would imagine it is a much harder level to enforce, in the sense that, presumably, you would have to demonstrate that someone had actually got access to the information and then misused it. I would think the best level of defence against misuse is to put some initial constraint on access, and that is what the government is seeking to do here. The second reading explanation states:

...in his report on the 2002 election, the former Commissioner recommended the Government consider an amendment to section 26 to prohibit the use of roll data for commercial purposes, including by companies to build marketing databases. The Government agrees with this. There is strong feeling about the misuse of electoral roll information. The Federal Privacy Commissioner has found that 70% of consumers do not think that the electoral roll should be available for commercial marketing purposes. As such, the Bill repeals subsection (2) of section 26 that requires that copies of the latest print of the roll must be made available for purchase.

I think that really addresses the honourable member's question. It was a recommendation from the former electoral commissioner back in the 2001-02 report, so clearly there was concern then about its abuse but, again, I repeat the fact that there are two levels on it. Yes; we certainly need to have provisions in the act which make it an offence to misuse the information. Obviously, it is difficult to prove, but limiting access is clearly an effective way in which one might be able to reduce the abuse of this information.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I ask the minister whether he knows how much it costs to actually purchase a copy of the electoral roll under the legislation.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The advice is that the Electoral Commissioner obviously does not deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis, but it is about $20 to $25 for the information. That is based on the previous election so, if one were to go into the Electoral Office, what you would be able to purchase is the electoral roll costing something of that order for each electorate. We think it is about $20 to $25; we will check it and correct the record later if that is not the case. It is something of that order for each electorate. The information you have, like now, as we are approaching an election in six months or so, would be 3½ years out of date.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The minister refers to the recommendations of the previous electoral commissioner, who quite properly said that there ought to be penalties for misuse of the information on the roll. That is one thing, which I am sure everybody would agree with. The way the government has chosen to attack it is not to increase the penalties or sanctions for misuse of the information but to use the rather draconian method of restricting access to the electoral roll. As the Hon. Mr Parnell pointed out, that is an entirely different issue, which raises wider issues.

I should point out that section 48 of the Electoral Act contains the timetable for the calling of the issue of writs and the calling of elections. An election can be conducted not less than 14 days after nominations close. This means that the candidate who is entitled to a copy of the roll will receive it only a couple of weeks before the election. What possible hope does a candidate have of using the information on the electoral roll in the 14 days before an election?

Clearly, members of political parties or sitting members will obtain their copy of the roll from a friendly source, but this extension to enable nominated candidates to have access to the roll is really no extension at all. It will be of no use at all to some Independents. I think this is just a further example of the fact that this legislation is devised by the incumbent government to assist it. The fact that it actually helps other established political parties is by the by. That, presumably, is why we are not particularly concerned about it. However, I am not as convinced as the minister that a nominated candidate is necessarily only one who has been nominated within the machinery of this particular act.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will address the issue raised by the honourable member. He talks about the limited time someone would have. Anyone who has been involved, particularly in the lower house, would be well aware that, at election time, for all sorts of reasons, a whole lot of people update their enrolment. Many of the 18 year olds we were talking about earlier will have delayed nominating for the roll until an election is called and then they think, 'Gee, I'd better rush in and get that in.' Of course, with all the advertising we talked about earlier in relation to the electoral roll, they will enrol and, similarly, people will update their address. Many people who changed their address some six or 12 months ago will suddenly think, 'Gee, I'd better go and regularise my entry on the electoral roll, with an election coming up.'

There are far more changes to the roll just prior to an election than one would get in a normal update. The reality is that just before the closing date there will be more enrolments or more changes than one would normally get. It will take some time, obviously, for the Electoral Commission to collate and print them, so there will be a limit for whoever gets that information anyway, whether they are long-standing members or not. Clearly, that information for the update, for that significant number of people who will change their enrolment at the last moment, will leave only a small amount of time in which they will get that information, anyway.

Of course, if one has the old roll from three years ago then you will probably have 80 or 90 per cent of the people on the roll. However, with those changes, the largest number always occurs just before an election and, inevitably, there must be only a very short period since, after all, the rolls close at a particular time during the election campaign. There is not going to be much time for anyone, whether you are a new candidate or an old candidate, to get that particular information. I am not sure that I really see the point the honourable member is making in relation to that.

I remind the committee that anyone can check the roll and have a look at it manually. What we are talking about here is supplying a copy of the total roll and, of course, it is much more likely to be used or abused for commercial reasons. It is not as though people cannot go and check, if they need to, at present. This is not likely to serve the interests of those who might wish to use the electoral roll for commercial purposes.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just in terms of the minister's response, where he talks about how up to date the information is, the point that the Hon. Robert Lawson and I have been making is that you do not get access to any information, whether or not it is up to date, until you have, on the minister's interpretation, nominated with the Electoral Commission to be a candidate in that election.

The other thing I should say is that I will be supporting measures that occur later in the bill to create the offence of misuse, and we will get on to another amendment shortly about increasing the penalties for misuse. My point in moving this amendment was basically to say that, if the tool is about preventing misuse, let us use appropriate tools. Let's not use denial of access as a tool to prevent misuse. There are other better tools, such as the provisions that we will deal with later in the bill.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I disagree. I would have thought that, as the first protection, you would limit access to the roll to those who are more likely to have a legitimate purpose for it. If it is readily available—and let's be blunt here—the effect of the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment would be to create a loophole that would effectively, we would argue, make it available to everyone at any time. All you would have to do is say, 'Yes, it's my intention to nominate at the next election,' even if you do not. So, a commercial company could come and say that they are going to enrol. As I have said, anyone can look at the role. If you need to check information, whether or not you are correctly enrolled, that is possible now. What we are talking about here is getting copies of the roll. I would have thought that the best protection against the abuse of that is to limit access, and that is why we oppose the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, which would effectively scuttle that line of protection.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would like to make a comment on the response by the Hon. Paul Holloway regarding this so-called restriction of the electoral roll. If it is available for about $25 an electorate, as other members here have pointed out, that makes it just affordable enough for small business. So, the people being restricted from access to this are those who have an intention to participate in the political process and be involved in that process for an election, if they have stated their intention.

If it is only $25 per electorate for the electoral roll, the argument could also be that those intended candidates could go out and purchase it, anyway. I believe that we are in a bit of a bind with this. I am a bit confused about this myself. We should make it unlimited access, because 500 people could state their intention to stand at the next election, and they could be small businesses that do not want to pay the $25 an electorate to access that. I think there has to be some sort of measure or level of accountability. If a person states that they intend to run for an election, there has to be some sort of proof that there are steps in place for that to occur. I do not think that stating the intention, as such, is enough.

However, I also do not believe that the minister's arguments about restricting access to it are 100 per cent accurate, either. If it is so cheap for people to purchase and affordable to businesses and corporations, small and otherwise, that is the main problem people have with their information being out there: they are just continually hounded by insurance and telecommunications companies, and other promotional things for business.

All in all, I do not believe that the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment fixes the problem. Also, I do not believe that the minister's explanation addresses the issues about which we are talking, because there has been no real restriction placed on the electoral roll and no steps have been taken to ensure a level of accountability for a person who states an intention to stand as a member of parliament. So, I do not see the purpose.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Basically, the government is saying that, if the electoral roll is now available, it ought to be restricted. We believe that there are two measures—and we are acting on the 2002 report of the Electoral Commission—that make it an offence to misuse the roll; but the first line of protection is to make it less available. We are not saying that you cannot purchase it any longer; we are saying that it should be available to those (nominated candidates, and so on) who have a legitimate reason for knowing who their electors are. That should cover the major and minor parties, but it will deny access to those who seek it for commercial reasons.

If people want to check the roll they can; it is not as though the information is secret. We are saying that you should not be able to get this information by, for example, buying it. Clearly, members of parliament and candidates use it to communicate with their electors, and the only other purpose is likely to be commercial, so, let us not allow those others to have it. That is essentially what we are seeking to do. If the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment is carried, it would mean that if you are a small business that wanted to get around that restriction, which we are suggesting should be imposed, you can simply say, 'Well, I'm a candidate', and get it on that basis.

The Electoral Commission has just provided information about the roll. Copies of the electoral roll are available for purchase by members of the public for $11 each. Members of the public can purchase the roll for all 47 districts for $444. Of course, they would be 3½ years out of date if they were to buy them. We are suggesting—if I understand the clause correctly—that if this bill is passed we should restrict that access so that members of the public cannot buy the roll; it would be limited to nominated MPs, parties, candidates and the like.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The minister uses the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner in 2002 to assist his argument, but I remind him that in the same recommendation the Electoral Commissioner also said:

The government should consider further restrictions on the use of roll data by candidates, parties, members of their staff for election, and/or non election purposes, other than as supplied by the elector.

So, the government has chosen to implement one part of the recommendation of the commissioner, namely, restriction on the commercial use of the data, but it has chosen not to address the issue that the commissioner raised of restricting the use by candidates, parties, members of their staff for election, etc. I think the government is being a little inconsistent in its approach here.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked the minister some time ago to provide examples of the current commercial misuse of data on the electoral roll. Everybody appreciates that there is a potential for misuse; nobody likes being harassed by telemarketers and the like. However, has there been any direct evidence of misuse by commercial enterprises of the electoral roll?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the problem there is—and I alluded to it earlier—how do you know whether the information is being sourced from the electoral roll? It is possible that you could have got it from another database, which I imagine would be almost impossible to prove. Although we should have provisions in this law, as in any other law, to prevent abuse, and it should have penalties, that is not the same thing as saying that you can easily catch somebody who does it. How could you prove that? That is exactly why the government would argue that the best line of defence is, in the first instance, restriction.

Incidentally, in relation to that, I was just asked a question about what happens with the Australian Electoral Commission roll, because that would obviously be more useful to a person commercially because it is a larger area. There are 11 rolls in the state rather than 47. My understanding is that the commonwealth rolls cannot be purchased. Clearly, if you could get the information from the commonwealth, that would provide a loophole. Conversely, if the commonwealth restricts it but you can get it through the state, then that is a backdoor way. That is why this legislation would be more important; if there is a commonwealth restriction, to be consistent, and given that it is essentially the same information, we should do that as well.

I understand that the public cannot go in and purchase a roll, although the AEC may make it available to others; there may be arrangements where it could be available in some circumstances, but that is a matter for the commonwealth. However, it is worth pointing out that the public, at least, cannot go in and pay over the counter for a roll, as you can here in South Australia. The proposals in this bill are, therefore, more consistent with what happens in the commonwealth, even though its arrangements might be somewhat more complicated than that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister advise whether the government intends to prohibit the general public from purchasing other government data that supplies information such as names, addresses, property details and so on? If not, what is the relevance of this clause? You would prevent it with this one, but not with other government data.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the point is that electoral data is probably the most comprehensive. Where else can you link the names of everyone in the state—not everyone will be on the roll, but most should be—with addresses? I imagine that in that sense this would be the most comprehensive database. There would be more particular information in other government data, but it may not be as comprehensive. I am sure there are also other provisions in terms of privacy and so on that relate to the other data, but we would have to research that issue.

As with the electoral roll, a lot of information can be searched—you can search certain property data and so on, for a price, of course—but whether or not you can purchase large amounts of data is another matter. In any case, there are other public policy issues. For example, it is in the public interest to know the price of real estate. One would argue that it probably helps consumer information, and I know that one can purchase it in a particular area. I do not think it would be wise to restrict that sort of information—and I am sure the honourable member would not necessarily suggest that. It would not be feasible to purchase information for the entire state and, basically, have so much information on everyone in there. I think that is why the electoral roll is much more significant than other sources of government data.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:17]


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