HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 3 July 2013.)

New clause 17A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 8, after line 19—Insert:

17A—Amendment of section 78—Right of elector to receive ballot paper

Section 78(2)—Delete 'Where a person claiming to vote' and substitute 'Subject to this Act, where an elector who'

I would suggest to the committee that [Wade-6] 5 is consequential to [Wade-6] 1, and I seek the support of the committee as it is a consequential amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 18.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bressington, you have a number of amendments to clause 18. They are consequential?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes, they are consequential.

The CHAIR: And therefore you will not be proceeding with those?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: No.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

New clause 20A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move [Wade-5] 4:

Page 8, after line 29—Insert:

20A—Amendment of section 100—Reviewable decisions

Section 100(1)—after paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) a decision by the Electoral Commissioner as to the registration of a how-to-vote card; or

I suggest that this is consequential to [Wade-2] 1, but if it is not regarded as consequential I suggest at least that it is appropriate. This amendment allows a decision of the Electoral Commissioner regarding the registration of how-to-vote cards to be appealed to the District Court. As the council has agreed to the how-to-vote provisions proposed by the opposition earlier, I would suggest, as I said, that this is either consequential or appropriate. Without this provision there would be no opportunity for a person to appeal against the decision of the commissioner to reject the registration of a how-to-vote card.

New clause inserted.

Clause 21.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 8, after line 36—After inserted paragraph (ab) insert:

(ac) if the advertisement is authorised for a relevant third party—the relevant third party's name appears at the end; and

(2) Section 112—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

relevant third party means an organisation or other person, other than a registered political party, candidate or natural person, who—

(a) as at the day of publication of the advertisement to which subsection (1)(ac) relates, intends to spend more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements—

(i) if the advertisement is published in an election period—during that election period; or

(ii) in any other case—during the election period for the next general election due to occur; or

(b) spent more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements during the election period for the general election immediately preceding the day of publication of the advertisement to which subsection (1)(ac) relates.

This amendment proposes to extend the disclosure requirements on authorisations so that they apply to relevant third parties in a similar form to those placed on parties and independent candidates; that is, that the organisation's name appears in the authorisation line for electoral advertisements.

Relevant third parties are defined as organisations or other persons, other than a registered political party candidate or natural person, who intend to spend more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements during the election period. Electoral advertisements are advertisements containing electoral matter that is calculated to affect the result of the election. The definition is based on the New South Wales statute—that is, section 4 of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981—and includes the same threshold of $2,000. This would exclude most community organisations and there would be no need for third parties to disclose their expenditure.

The threat to third parties who wish to spend more than $2,000 without disclosing the organisation's name is that they would be in breach of section 112, which carries a maximum penalty of $10,000. In the opposition's view it is reasonable that, when an organisation engages in political advertising that is intended to influence the outcome of the election, the organisation identifies itself. It would otherwise be possible for a political party to set up a front organisation to distribute on its behalf, but free of those disclosure requirements. This provision promotes transparency and therefore the integrity of our electoral system.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment introduces provisions that look reasonable at face value; however, the government agrees that there is benefit in considering the involvement of third parties in the electoral process. The government has concerns about how the amendment will be workable. The notion that a relevant third party can be adequately captured by an intention to spend more than $2,000 on electoral advertisements is of concern. This appears to make the provisions difficult to enforce.

The government is interested in implementing a regime for the regulation of third-party campaigners but believes there are matters such as unmasking the influence of companies and money in setting up fronts, or using otherwise unrelated individuals to hide the money trail. The government will continue to work on doing this in a comprehensive way, and opposes this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate the minister's indication that the government is interested in the issue, and that does confirm that it does attach to the integrity of the system. There may well be issues of 'with intention', certainly in a criminal matter; in fact, in the Hon. Mr Darley's bill yesterday, in relation to dishonest dealing with children, one of our concerns was intention, so I appreciate that that does raise evidential issues.

To me, the issues do not seem so great that they cannot be considered in the context of this bill. I respect the fact that the minister may not have been aware that the relevant third party definition and the threshold we are using are actually already being used in New South Wales, albeit for different purpose. However, in that context I put it to the government and to the committee that this would be an appropriate amendment to support so that we could have discussions to see whether it is possible, in the time frame, to find a workable phrasing.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will just ask the mover a question because I agree with the sentiment that we need these third parties not to be anonymous and to be named—that is the starting point. The difficulty relates to the definition of 'relevant third party'. The definition is split into two: there are people who have spent $2,000 already and then there are people who intend to spend $2,000.

With the people who have already spent $2,000, it might be possible to work that out. If you have a full-page ad in The Advertiser, chances are it costs you more than $2,000, but you do not know. If you have something on social media that has gone viral, you will not know to what extent it was paid promotion that led to that or whether it was simply word-of-mouth sort of passing it on or a combination of the two. So, I think the past spending is easier but still not that simple.

Could the honourable member explain how the first part of the definition of 'relevant third party' might work, given that the party has to, at the date of the publication of the advertisement, intend to spend more than $2,000? Evidence-wise, how does he see that working?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will certainly address it as best I can, but let me stress again that, in the implementation of such a regime, we would benefit from the experience of New South Wales because they use it for a similar purpose. I imagine that the reason why New South Wales has put in 2A is that you want to catch the first ad. If you are putting a full-page ad in the paper, you know it is going to be more than $2,000, so make sure it is on the first ad. You would not have much luck in a prosecution on this matter by saying, 'When I placed the ad, I did not intend to spend $2,000.'

I take the point the member makes about internet advertising and the complexities there. These things will have to be addressed; let us, if you like, not shy away from strengthening our system because of that. The intention might be proven by the bookings, if you like. You might have booked a whole series of ads and, okay, you have not done it—there is no invoice that has been raised or cheque that has been written in fulfilment of those—but there would be evidence. You have an intention to spend it because you have booked the ads. I think it is a workable first step. I urge the council to put, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan might say, the post-it note on the bill, and let us have a conversation about it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yesterday, the Hon. Stephen Wade encouraged us to support amendments that clearly were not perfect and borrowed the phrase from another honourable member about the post-it note. We did not accept that yesterday because the amendment that we were being asked to support was so imperfect that it was not a post-it note, it was a post-it phone book or something—it was just far too significant.

This is slightly different, I think. In light of the member's answer, this does need more work. The Greens are happy to support this amendment for now, but on the understanding that, no doubt, it will come back, otherwise we might find that it is just an unworkable provision on the statute book that is impossible to prove. We want to keep this conversation alive because, at the heart of it, we want the third party's name to appear on these ads and we need a mechanism for making that happen.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I can briefly comment, because I must admit I was disturbed by—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I was—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade, I was about to put your amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I might be ruled out of order on relevance, but I am actually picking up the point about the post-it notes.

The CHAIR: I will judge that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It was raised by the Hon. Bernard Finnigan yesterday, and I take his point that our job is to progress the legislation. I have been here for seven years and most of my work as an opposition member has been putting in post-it notes, putting in amendments that the government might not like now but it is a foot in the door, if you like, for further conversation. So I urge honourable members not to get carried away with the Hon. Bernard Finnigan's post-it notes, because I think we would completely disempower this chamber.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bressington.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I want to hear what the Hon. Ms Bressington has to say.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am supporting the amendment. I think if we are so concerned about how we would implement this particular amendment, somebody could make a phone call to New South Wales and ask them how they do it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 9, line 3 to page 10, line 24 [clause 22, inserted section 112A]—

Delete inserted section 112A and substitute:

112A—Distribution of how-to-vote cards

(1) During the election period for an election, a person must not distribute, or cause or permit to be distributed, a how-to-vote card.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the distribution of a how-to-vote card—

(a) that has been submitted for inclusion in posters under section 66; or

(b) that has been registered under section 66A; or

(c) that is a compilation of more than 1 how-to-vote card of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

(3) The presiding officer at a polling booth may request a person reasonably suspected by the presiding officer of distributing, or causing or permitting to be distributed, a how-to-vote card at or near that polling booth on polling day—

(a) to produce for inspection any how-to-vote cards in the person's possession; and

(b) to hand over all how-to-vote cards other than ones referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b).

(4) A person who fails to comply with a request under subsection (3) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $1,250.

(5) In this section—

distribute includes make available to other persons.

I am happy to address this amendment, but I will perhaps indicate to the government that we think it is consequential. The government does too, so unless honourable members want to discuss it, I am happy for it to be put.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 and 24 passed.

New clause 25.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 10, after line 40—Insert:

25—Amendment of section 126—Prohibition of advocacy of forms of voting inconsistent with Act

Section 126(2)—delete 'marked so as to indicate a valid vote in the manner prescribed in section 76(1) or (2).' and substitute:

—

(a) marked so as to indicate a valid vote in the manner prescribed in section 76(1) or (2); or

(b) identical to a card—

(i) submitted for inclusion in posters under section 66; or

(ii) registered under section 66A.

This amendment is required to allow open tickets to be distributed, and I would suggest that it is therefore consequential on [Wade-5] 1.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think we might need some guidance from parliamentary counsel because I still need to move my proposed insertion of 25, which is very close but not identical to the Hon. Stephen Wade's. I am happy to take some guidance with the committee's indulgence. I will not be moving the insertion of the new clause 25 because the contents of that are incorporated within the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment. Even though the amendment is different, it incorporates all of mine.

New clause inserted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I had a further amendment on a different matter but it is consequential on something that failed earlier, so I do not need to move it now.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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