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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3147.)

Clause 5.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 5, line 4 [ clause 5(3), inserted subsection (4)]—Delete 'subsection (2)' and substitute:

subsection (2) and (3)

As I indicated earlier, this amendment was only circulated today. It is a technical amendment. If members would prefer, we can recommit it and deal with it later. Basically, the amendment corrects a minor drafting error. Subsection (4) places conditions around the provision of electoral rolls to MPs, registered parties and now, given the earlier debate, the nominated candidates under subsection (2).

Amendments in the lower house inserted a new subsection (3), which addresses concerns about redistributions. Where the Boundaries Commission has made a decision on boundaries under which the boundaries of the district are to be altered to include any part of another district, subsection (3) entitles a House of Assembly member, or a nominated candidate, to an up-to-date copy of the roll for that other district. Subsection (4) currently refers only to subsection (2), not subsection (3). So, this amendment simply adds a reference to subsection (3) to correct a drafting error. If anyone objects, we can deal with it by recommittal. I appreciate that I have introduced a number of other amendments, some more substantial than this one, but this just corrects a minor drafting error.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I accept the minister's assurance that it is a minor drafting error, and I do not propose to seek any further information or elaboration in relation to it. I do, however, have other questions in relation to this clause generally.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens' position is similar. We do not object to this late amendment, but I do have a number of other questions on this clause.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 5, line 18 [clause 5(3), inserted subsection (5), penalty provision]—Delete '$100,000' and substitute:

$50,000 or imprisonment for 5 years.

Before speaking to this amendment, I want to ask some questions of the minister in relation to proposed new clause 26(5). This new provision relates to what we talked about earlier regarding the misuse of copies of the electoral roll. The clause provides:

If a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section, a person who uses that copy of the roll, or information contained in that copy of the roll, for a purpose other than a state, federal or local government purpose is guilty of an offence.

A number of interpretational questions arise from that. The first one is: is this the only clause in this amending bill that provides an offence of misusing an electoral roll? My understanding was that there was some other clause somewhere else, but I have not been able to find it. If this is the only clause that provides for an offence of misusing the roll, then I have some further questions that flow from that answer.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that this is the only section that specifically refers to the misuse of the electoral roll; however, there are other provisions that relate to breach of conditions placed on the provision of information by the commissioner; they are similar to supplementary offences.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The reason I ask is that the word 'person' is used twice in the first two lines of this proposed new subsection. It provides: 'if a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section'. That person is going to be someone connected with the political party, someone who is nominated to be a candidate, or an existing member of parliament.

It goes on to provide that, if a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section, the person who uses a copy of the roll improperly is guilty of an offence. Is the offender the member of parliament, for example, who may have sold his or her copy of the electoral roll to a commercial enterprise that then misuses it, or is the offence committed by that commercial misuse? Is it the seller or the buyer of the electoral roll who is guilty of an offence?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it could be both. A person who is validly given a copy of the roll and then misuses it would be guilty of the offence. Even if they were given it validly and they misuse it, they have breached section 5(5). Likewise, if that information was given to a party official for a valid purpose and somebody in that office misused it for a commercial purpose, for example, or if they found it lying about and took it out and misused it, they could also then be guilty of an offence.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: On the same point, I am very uneasy about this clause for a number of reasons, in particular, what its effect is. I cannot understand the necessity for the introductory words, 'if a copy of the roll is provided to a person under this section.' Surely, the evil that is being aimed at is not in the way in which a particular type of copy is handled but how the roll is handled, or mishandled, generally.

I would have thought that they do not add anything to the essential purpose of the section, which ought to simply read that if any person uses a copy of the roll for a purpose other than some permitted purpose that person is guilty of an offence. Is this intended to suggest that, if somehow some government department obtains the roll, but not by reason of being handed a copy of it by a member of parliament, the misuse of that particular type of roll is not prohibited?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that under section 27A there are prescribed authorities who can obtain a copy of the roll. This particular part is not aimed at them; rather, it is aimed at those who receive the roll under section 26. Section 27A of the Electoral Act, Provision of Certain Information, provides:

(1) The Electoral Commissioner may, on application by a prescribed authority, provide the authority with any information in the Electoral Commissioner's possession about an elector.

It is not aimed at those people. Rather, it is aimed at those who get it under new section 26, Inspection and Purchase of Rolls, which provides for those who can have copies of the electoral roll.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Can the minister indicate who are the prescribed authorities under section 27A?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Electoral Regulations 1997, part 6—Prescribed authorities (section 27A), provides:

(1) For the purposes of section 27A(1) of the Act, the following are prescribed authorities:

(a) the Commissioner of Police;

(b) the Sheriff, deputy sheriffs and sheriff's officers;

(c) the Chief Executive of the administrative unit that is, under the relevant Minister, responsible for the administration of the Health Care Act 2008;

(d) the South Australian Superannuation Board;

(e) Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Incorporated.

(2) For the purposes of section 27A(2) of the Act—

(a) a member of either of the Houses of Parliament is a person of a prescribed class; and

(b) the age bands are the ages from 18 to 24 (inclusive), 25 to 34 (inclusive), 35 to 44 (inclusive), and so on.

Part 6(2)(b) refers to the age bands for which the information is provided.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Is the effect of that then that those authorities are able to misuse, with impunity, the information on the roll, but those who are unable to misuse it are members of parliament and those who obtain it under section 26?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think there are different provisions relating to misuse, but I will check on that. I am advised that section 27A(4) of the act provides:

The Electoral Commissioner—

(a) may provide information under this section subject to conditions notified in writing to the authority or person to whom the information is given; and

(b) may charge a fee (to be fixed by the Electoral Commissioner) for providing information.

Section 27A(5) provides:

An authority or person who contravenes or fails to comply with a condition under subsection (4)(a) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $1,250.

I think we may be changing that, but I will have to check the bill. Certainly, that is what the current act provides.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I would like to clarify the intent of this provision. If we take the roll for the Legislative Council, for example, that is effectively an address list of every adult in South Australia. When we consider that, under new section 26 it can be provided in electronic format, effectively the value of that information is that it is data that can be turned into mailing labels for every adult in the state.

Under this provision that list will be in the hands of the 22 members of this chamber, it will be in the hands of all the registered political parties, and it will be in the hands of the 50 or so people who put their hand up for candidacy at the next election. I need to be very clear whether if any of those people, either by gift or by sale, or whatever means, give a copy of that roll, say, in electronic format on a disk, to a commercial operator, and where that commercial operator then uses it to direct mail to people in South Australia, is the offence committed by both the person who handed the list over, whether for consideration or otherwise, and the commercial operator who then used it to direct mail for commercial purposes? I want to make it absolutely clear whether both the giver and the receiver of that information are guilty of an offence.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice—subject to the particular facts—is that the answer would be yes. Certainly in both cases the answer would be yes but, obviously, it would depend on the facts.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will now speak very quickly to the amendment that I have moved, and it does relate to this new subsection. Under this subsection, the penalty is currently $10,000. My amendment proposes to increase that to a penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for five years. The reason I have punted for a serious increase in the penalties is that we are talking about seriously valuable information which could be misused and the penalties need to reflect that.

It would seem to me that $10,000 is probably much less than the asking price for an electronic address list of every South Australian adult. It would seem that, if a commercial operator only had to pay $10,000 for, effectively, 600,000 personalised mailing addresses at people's homes, that would be an absolute bargain. So, that is the reason for my moving to increase the penalty.

I wanted to get that on the record before I forgot, but I do have some more questions of the minister relating to this clause. We have now clarified who is liable for the criminal penalty, but they are only liable if that information has been misused. The misuse, as defined in this new subsection, is: if the person uses the information for a purpose other than a state, federal or local government purpose. The key question there is: what on earth is a state, federal or local government purpose?

I will add some extra information. Federal and local government purposes: no-one connected with the federal or with local government is entitled, under section 26, to obtain a copy of the roll other than, I guess, political parties, which do contest elections at every level. It seems very curious that the state roll can be potentially used for local government purposes. My specific question is: what is the meaning of a state, federal or local government purpose?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is, obviously, a fairly broad definition that covers anything related to state, federal or local government. Without trying to prejudge what the counsel might have meant, it is one way of saying 'non-commercial'. It is non-commercial use, essentially, but I suppose it was probably the most elegant legal way of appropriately defining the use.

If you said 'non-commercial' that would, obviously, be a much more subjective judgment about what was commercial or not. We use the term loosely here, and the Hon. Mark Parnell himself talked about commercial use, and I think we all know what he means. In a legal sense it might be difficult to determine exactly what that was, but if you refer to 'state, local and federal government use' then I think that is probably something that could be more easily determined.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. The difficulty is the crossover between government and commercial. For example, if a political party wanted to use this address list for South Australia to solicit funds from the community for the purpose of fighting the next election, would that be regarded as a state, federal or local government purpose? Clearly, it would be seeking money; the money would end up in the hands of TV and radio stations, but the purpose would be to help fight the election. Is that a legitimate use of the electoral roll?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Before the minister answers, perhaps I could add another example. Very often the information on the electoral roll is used by political parties and candidates for the purpose of direct mailing of constituents whose names and addresses are on the roll, for the purpose of soliciting, perhaps, donations, as the honourable member just mentioned, but also support. So, the purpose of the use is to get yourself re-elected, and I would not have thought that was a state, federal or local government purpose. It is a private political purpose.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the government believes—this is answering the Hon. Robert Lawson's point—that the interpretation is broad enough that it would cover that. Clearly, the aim here is—and, again, we go back to the suggestion of the former electoral commissioner in 2002—to restrict the use of the roll for commercial purposes; in other words, for people to make money out of it. How you define that in the act is, I would have thought, a fairly difficult thing to do.

Certainly it is the view of the government that the 'state, local or federal' definition would cover the use of that by members of parliament going about their business and for purposes they would be likely to use the electoral roll but, at the same time, it would preclude outside non-government commercial use, and that is essentially what we are trying to achieve.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: If the information on the roll is used, for example, to send out a dodger inviting people to a sausage sizzle for the purpose of enabling the candidate to ingratiate himself with local residents, how can that possibly be described as a state, federal or local government purpose?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will say it again: our view is that that is broad enough to cover that. If the honourable member wants to make a suggestion if he thinks there is a better definition, we are certainly open to it, but certainly it is our view that that should be covered. Clearly, that is not a commercial purpose.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: My concern is that this information will be in the hands of members of parliament and candidates who clearly do not wish to contravene the law and face the possibility of a conviction and $10,000 penalty, or $50,000 if the honourable member's amendment is carried. It is highly unsatisfactory to create offences in provisions of this kind that are difficult to understand and not clear. Why, for example, should a local government purpose be permitted? Local councillors and candidates for local councils are not entitled to a copy of the roll. Why should a local government purpose be permitted?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It just really is the government view, I suspect. If members of local government, for example, wish to avail themselves of that part of the roll that is relevant to their council area, why should they not be able to do so? That is not a commercial purpose. If somebody has an alternative wording, they could perhaps float it up, but essentially what we are trying to do here is to remove commercial money-making uses in respect of the electoral roll.

Other matters, however, and those related to government—and that includes the use by MPs—are quite clearly envisaged under the act. It is quite clear, I would have thought, under the act, that it is set out that MPs should have access to the roll. Clearly the intention and, we would suggest, the effect of this clause is for MPs to use the information in the course of their activities, which will of course mean corresponding with electors. That is a perfectly valid and legitimate use of the electoral roll.

As I said, the alternative would be, I suppose, to have a definition of commercial. I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that you would have a lot more arguments over what is or is not commercial than you would over what is a state, local or federal government purpose. If an MP or a local councillor is using information legitimately derived from the electoral roll, one would hope that this particular expression of the clause would ensure that that use is valid.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Without wishing to prolong debate on my amendment too much, I point out to members that my back-of-envelope calculation shows that the maximum penalty is 1¢ per address, and I am proposing to raise it to 5¢ per address. It is still probably the cheapest address list that anyone has ever purchased, not that I would want to suggest for one minute that any member of this chamber would stoop so low as to sell their electronic copy of the roll.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that we will vote against this clause because we believe that it is unfair, vague in its operation and will seriously inconvenience members of parliament and candidates by not specifically stating what their duty is in relation to it. Given that we believe that it is an unfair and flawed provision, we do not believe that the penalty for infringing it should be increased. Indeed, it should be decreased. We will not be supporting it because, if this passes in its present form, it is simply an outrageous provision and it should not be heavily penalised.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell. This amendment increases the penalty for a breach of new subsection 26(4), which prohibits a person using roll information provided under section 26 for a purpose other than federal, state or local government purposes, from $10,000 to $50,000 or imprisonment for five years. The government opposes that. This is a large increase in penalty; it takes the offence up to the indictable category.

The next highest penalty under the act would be the penalty for the offence of forging a ballot paper, which carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 or two years. I would think that forging a ballot paper—something that would undermine the total integrity of the electoral process—is more serious. There is a relativity issue here. Certainly, I do not disagree with the Hon. Mark Parnell that using the roll for commercial purposes is a serious offence, but we believe that $10,000 is a more appropriate figure and, for that reason, we oppose his amendment.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I gave the example of an invitation to a sausage sizzle, but perhaps a more pertinent one would be use by a member of information on the electoral roll for the purpose of sending birthday cards to electors. How can the dispatch of such a birthday card be correctly categorised as a state, federal or local government purpose? It is a private or political purpose; it is not a government purpose at all.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If a local member or endorsed candidate or councillor or federal member were to send that out based on information from the roll, it is the government's view that that would be covered by the definition. If it needs to be clarified, certainly, the government will oppose the amendment and support it in this form. If it does not have the numbers, I guess it can be revisited in terms of the definition. I hope that at least a majority of members here would agree that what we want to do is outlaw commercial use of the electoral roll. If there is a better way of expressing it, the government is certainly happy to look at that. We will maintain our position that we believe that the definition should allow members of parliament and endorsed candidates and others to legitimately use that information. If it is the will of the committee to oppose it on those grounds, I guess we will have a look at that later.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First does not support the Greens' amendment, but the other issue I would like to comment on is that I think the Hon. Mr Lawson has a point. We are concerned that somebody may inadvertently infringe the intent of the legislation here. I certainly support the minister's comments that we would in no way condone the commercial use of this information, but I believe the Hon. Mr Lawson has a valid point. It is possible that a candidate or elected member could inadvertently infringe the legislation and therefore be subject to a fairly stiff penalty, so it is difficult to support in its current form, although the thrust or intent of it is something that we would wholeheartedly support.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We will now vote on the whole clause. Again, I indicate that, given the comments that have been made (I assume the clause will be opposed), we will not divide on it, but we will reserve the option to revisit that, perhaps by looking at the definition.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I have further questions on clause 5. The initial amendment is to include not only printed but also electronic forms, which is certainly a sensible suggestion. Section 26(1), as amended, will then provide that copies (print or electronic) of the latest prints of the rolls must be available for inspection. The 'latest prints of the rolls', it provides. Elsewhere in the section, as amended, it talks about not the latest prints or not even the latest roll but 'up-to-date' copies, so the different nomenclature gives rise to an impression that there is a difference between what is the latest and what is the up-to-date copy of the roll, and I seek clarification as to exactly what is intended to be meant by the latest copies of the prints, as opposed to up-to-date copies.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the last available printed version of the roll is that which applies at the previous election, so the last available printed version of the electoral roll is that which applied in this state just prior to the 2006 state election, but the most up-to-date version of the roll is the electronic version. Clause 5(3)(2)(a) provides that the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide a member of the House of Assembly (and later, in (b), a member of the Legislative Council) with an up-to-date copy of the electoral roll, which will be the electronic version. If one goes over to 5(4)(b), it provides that a copy of a roll may be provided in electronic form, as determined by the Electoral Commissioner, so that would be the up-to-date version, whereas the print, or hard, copy would be that which is produced before each election every four years. Rather than dividing on this, we understand the issue that has been raised and if necessary we will revisit this later in the debate.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate for the record that Family First's intent would be to support that, should the minister do so. Our concern was that raised by the Hon. Mr Lawson.

Clause negatived.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: This is the amendment of section 27 which enables the Electoral Commissioner to request information from certain agencies and instrumentalities of the Crown. However, it is proposed to insert a new section 27(1)(a), and the regulations may provide that subsection (1) does not apply to a particular agency or instrumentality of the Crown, prescribed authority or public sector employee. Will the minister indicate exactly what is intended to be covered by this provision and why it is necessary?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is a bit of confusion here because clause 6(1) relates to section 27(1)(a), but clause 6(2) refers to inserting a new subsection (1)(a) in section 27. Perhaps the best way to explain it is to look at the provisions of section 27 of the current act, as follows:

The Electoral Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require (a) any officer in the Public Service of the state or (b) a local government body or any officer...to provide him or her with information required in connection with the preparation, maintenance or revision of the rolls.

What we are doing is changing those categories that apply to an agency or instrumentality of the Crown or any other prescribed authority or any public sector employee. We are changing the people who the Electoral Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require to provide information in connection with the preparation of the roll. However, there are certain agencies where that may be inappropriate, so we make provision to provide that the subsection does not apply to a particular agency or instrumentality of the Crown—for example, it may be SAPOL. It may not be appropriate for the Electoral Commissioner to have the power to require the police commissioner to provide information in connection with the preparation, maintenance or revision of the rolls if, presumably, there are security or other reasons where it may not be appropriate.

In the act the Electoral Commissioner has broad powers to require information from any agency or instrumentality of the Crown but there is provision so that, in the case of the police (for example), the regulations can provide that an agency such as that may not have to provide information or (in part B) specified information or material in the possession or control of an agency. I do not think it is envisaged that the Electoral Commissioner should have power to ask the police commissioner to provide highly confidential secure information; it is simply to permit that to happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand that the amendments are similar and they relate to the issue of an elector's date of birth being included on the electoral roll, rather than the age band in which the elector's age falls. I understand that the reason why this change has been made in the government's bill is to enable members of parliament to effectively spam their constituents with birthday cards—and I can see no public purpose in that. I think that citizens do have a right to privacy, especially in relation to information that they are obliged to provide.

Members need to remember that, apart from the age at which you are entitled to enrol (being the age of 18), age is irrelevant in every other respect in the electoral system. You are not struck off the electoral roll when you reach 100, 110 or 150. That is not to say that a good understanding of the age of the population is not important for public policy; it is absolutely critical, but the electoral roll is not the way to get that information. That information can be obtained from a number of other sources, not least of which is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. There are other means as well, such as the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Office. There is no shortage of other ways for interested government agencies, with a legitimate interest in this information, to obtain this sort of information.

I do not support the idea of members of parliament being able to seek to ingratiate themselves with their constituents through the use of birthday cards. That, of course, gives incumbents an incredible advantage over anyone else who might seek at some future election to come in and represent those people. So, this is a simple amendment which just seeks to remove this additional requirement for the elector's date of birth to be included on the roll.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell deletes the amendment to section 27A that will entitle the person of a prescribed class—currently members of parliament—to an elector's date of birth rather than the age ban, as it is under the act now. The government opposes this amendment. Providing members of parliament with access to an elector's date of birth will allow members to better serve their constituents by improving their ability to provide information on age-related services.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 5, lines 31 to 33 [clause 7(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2)

This amendment is essentially in two parts. The first is very similar. It essentially reverts to the sections already in the Electoral Act, which is that age bands be available, but it deletes the government's insertion of the date of birth and, consequential to that, reverts the deletion of the note that relates to age bands. It is a consequence of moving from age bands to date of birth.

I will not repeat too much of what the Hon. Mark Parnell said. Our arguments are essentially the same. I do not see any public policy reason why constituents need birthday cards. I think that is an invasion of privacy and, once the provision is in place, with modern technology and data mining in closely contested marginal seats, I can even imagine choirs of Labor Party people turning up outside someone's house to sing Happy Birthday to them once they have that kind of information.

No doubt, we could have some sort of profusion of significant birthdays, such as the message people receive from the Queen when they turn 100. We could expand this to 70, 85 and 90, and people could be getting birthday cards on as many occasions as is humanly possible to imagine. The purpose for this is purely political. I think it is an invasion of privacy. I think it is unnecessary and, hence, I oppose the government's amendments. I would like to see this revert to the existing Electoral Act, which just provides age bands.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: For the same reason we opposed the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, we oppose this amendment, which is very similar.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I indicate that Liberal members will not be supporting the amendments made by the two killjoys here who seek to deprive constituents of birthday greetings. More particularly, it would seek to deprive members of parliament of more information about the electors whom they represent. It is true that information other than birthday greetings can be targeted if one is aware of the precise date of birth of an individual.

There is also a considerable number of electors who actually have the same name, and the absence of a birth date makes it difficult to identify whether or not one is the father or the son of a particular elector. So, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: There is a question that I wish to ask the minister. Is the purpose of clause 7(5) to exempt members of parliament from a fee that is payable? Why is that not extended to nominated candidates?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am about to move an amendment that addresses that point.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 5—line 34 [clause 7(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 27A(3)—Delete 'of a prescribed class'

The intention of my amendment is to continue to allow a person to restrict access to their personal details that are on the electoral roll, which would include restricting the access that members of parliament have to that information. As the act will stand with the government's amendment, or even without it, MPs will have special access to that information.

I am proposing in this amendment to delete from section 27A(3) the words 'of a prescribed class', so that the new subsection will read, 'Information is not to be disclosed if the elector has requested the Electoral Commissioner in writing not to do so'. In other words, if the half of the community that did not vote for a particular member was so minded, they could ask the Electoral Commissioner not to disclose their birthday to their local member of parliament.

Even though my earlier amendment has failed—dates of birth are now in there—this provision relates to the ability of an individual elector to protect their own personal information, including protecting it from a member of parliament, if they are minded to do so.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment does two things: first, it deletes the amendment that repeals section 27A(3), which is the provision that allows an elector to prohibit the release of his or her personal details to a person of a prescribed class, that is, a member of parliament; and, secondly, it amends section 27A(3) to delete the reference to a 'person of a prescribed class' and replaces it with 'person'. This means that, under section 27A(3), an elector will be able to prohibit disclosure of his or her personal details to any person. The amendment is opposed.

The repeal of section 27A(3) brings the Electoral Act into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. On a matter such as this, with joint roll arrangements, there is no reason for a state member to be denied the same information about an elector that is available to a federal member.

As to the second part of the amendment, subsection (3) must read in conjunction with subsection (2), which limits the disclosure of information to a person of a prescribed class. The government is unsure as to what this part of the amendment is getting at. In any event, the government opposes the amendment for the first mentioned reason.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: We too oppose the amendment on the ground that this provision will bring the state into line with the commonwealth provisions.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I support the amendment. It is clear that the major parties want to generate a perfect storm of spam in between the electoral rolls provided in electronic form. In terms of dates of birth, which the Hon. Mr Lawson has made clear can be used not just to celebrate your birthday but to remind you of the birthdays of all your family, we are heading for a lot of birthday cards heading into the homes of South Australians, and I think that is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 5, line 39 [clause 7(5), inserted subsection (6)]—After 'Parliament' insert:

or is a nominated candidate for an election

Again, the previous caveat I put on my amendments applies. Under section 27A(2) the commissioner may provide information about an elector to a person of a prescribed class. Currently, the only class of persons prescribed is MPs. The bill amends section 27A to add a new subsection (6) that exempts MPs from any fee charged by the commissioner for the provision of information under subsection (5).

To maintain consistency with section 26, which, as amended in the House of Assembly, entitles nominated candidates to up-to-date copies of the roll, amendment No. 2 exempts nominated candidates from paying any fee under section 27A, the assumption being that the government will amend the regulations under section 27A(2) to add nominated candidates as a prescribed class of person. I think that is fairly straightforward. Following the changes made in the other place, it simply tidies up this part of the legislation.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 6, after lines 5 to 11 [clause 8, inserted section 31A(1)]—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) A person may apply for enrolment under this section if the person—

(a) is in South Australia and has lived in South Australia for a continuous period of one month prior to the date of the application for enrolment; and

(b) qualifies for enrolment under section 29(1)(a), (b) and (d) but does not qualify for enrolment under section 29(1)(c) because he or she does not have a fixed place of residence (whether within the state or elsewhere).

I also note that there is an amendment to this clause in the name of the Hon. Robert Lawson, so it might be appropriate to move them and speak to them and then adjourn.

The amendment standing my name is the itinerant elector's provision. It imposes another requirement on a person seeking to enrol under the itinerant elector provision. The person seeking enrolment must live in South Australia and have lived here for a continuous period of one month prior to the application for enrolment.

This is aimed at addressing concerns that the itinerant enrolment provision is open to abuse by people coming into South Australia and enrolling to vote just before an election. It is also consistent with the requirements that must be satisfied under section 29 by other electors who have to reside at their principal place of residence for a continuous period of one month prior to enrolling under section 29(1)(c). I believe the amendment came after comments were made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, so it is simply a response to those comments. Again, I am happy to deal with it now or come back to it; it is not a particularly controversial amendment.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I believe this amendment is an improvement on the existing provision. As I outlined in my second reading contribution, the opposition believes that proposed section 31A is really an invitation to rort, and one could readily envisage—and I do not point the finger at any particular political party—that the young political groupies who follow the elections around the country, and who come to each state to work on a state campaign, could, under the existing provisions, have themselves enrolled as itinerant voters in South Australia for the purpose of voting in the election in which they have come to assist. Clearly that is not to be encouraged and ought to be prohibited. Whether or not the amendment proposed by the minister and introduced at about noon today covers that is something I have not yet thoroughly considered. I think it does, but I take up the minister's offer to defer final consideration of that.

Whilst on my feet, and in relation to the matter generally, I should say that one of our principal objections to the clause as originally proposed was that the Electoral Commissioner could take into account the postal address given (rather paradoxically) by this so-called homeless or itinerant elector, as well as any other relevant factor, in deciding into which electorate the elector would be enrolled. Under the commonwealth legislation, that is not simply a matter of discretion by the Electoral Commissioner. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act the Electoral Commissioner is required to enrol the person in the electorate for which the person was last entitled or, if the person never had such entitlement, into the division in which the person's next of kin was enrolled. If that is not applicable, it would be the division in which the person was born, or, if that did not apply, it would be into the division in which the person had the closest possible connection.

So there is a hierarchy that must be obeyed rather than a discretion. It is not that we are concerned about the way in which the Electoral Commissioner would exercise its discretion but rather about the way in which the elector would present the information to secure enrolment. Accordingly, I have put on file—and it must admit it was just this afternoon, and members will not have had an opportunity to look at it—an amendment to remove the currently proposed discretion and insert the same provision that applies in relation to the commonwealth legislation. Again, I appreciate that this is a clause that has just been introduced, although I did flag it in my second reading contribution, and I will understand if the committee wishes to defer consideration of that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Given that there is an amendment tabled by the Hon. Robert Lawson on this matter as well as the amendment I have moved, which was only tabled earlier today, I think this is an appropriate point at which to report progress and deal with this when parliament resumes in a week.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 16:50 the council adjourned until Tuesday 22 September 2009 at 14:15.


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