HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I make the point that there was a set [Parnell-1] which has now been replaced with [Parnell-2], so we can disregard the first set. I move:

Page 3, after line 10—After the present contents of clause 4 (now designated as subclause (1)) insert:

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

I would like to treat this as a test amendment for a number of others I have before the committee. This deals with the issue of what is called Robson rotation.

Robson rotation is a system whereby there are as many different forms of ballot paper produced as there are candidates. For example, if there are four candidates, then there are four ballot papers prepared so that each of the four candidates has an equal turn at the top. The purpose of Robson rotation is to do away with the donkey vote. In other words, no candidate is benefitted by being on the top of the paper because they will only be on the top of the paper in equal proportions to every other candidate.

As I say, if there are four candidates contesting a House of Assembly electorate, there will be four ballot papers, each candidate will be on the top of one of them, the ballot papers will be distributed to voters in equal proportion, and it effectively does away with the donkey vote and the reverse donkey vote. I outlined this in my second reading contribution, and I think members pretty well understand how it works. I have moved this amendment, and I will be treating it as a test for some of the other amendments I have on file.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): This is amendment No. 1 [AgriFoodFish-1]. Is that the one?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes. I move:

Page 3, after line 10—

After the present contents of clause 4 (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 4(1), definition of how-to-vote card—delete 'a particular candidate or group of candidates suggests that'

The advice I have received is that it is quite a simple technical issue to address a drafting issue.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): My advice is that we will deal with the amendments in the name of the Hon. Mr Parnell and the minister now, and then we will proceed to the amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was hoping to speak to Mr Parnell's amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Very good. I call the Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition understands that this amendment is the first in a series of three amendments by the Hon. Mark Parnell seeking to introduce Robson rotation. We agree with the honourable member's suggestion that it be regarded as a test amendment for subsequent amendments.

Robson rotation has been used in Tasmania since 1979 and in the Australian Capital Territory since 1995 and has previously been proposed in this place by the former Democrat MLC David Winderlich and debated during the last round of changes to the Electoral Act prior to the 2010 state election.

Robson rotation, as the member has highlighted, refers to a system of ballot production whereby the order of candidates on ballot papers is rotated so that as far as possible each candidate is listed in each position on the ballot paper the same number of times, and ballot papers bearing each ballot order are randomly distributed to voters.

Robson rotation aims to remove any advantage or disadvantage that a candidate may gain through the ballot paper order. In particular, rotation of the order aims to nullify the practice amongst some electors of numbering their ballot paper in the order in which the candidates appear on the ballot paper, rather than numbering them according to their conscience preferences. This is commonly known as 'donkey voting'. Of course, a voter's preferences may coincide with the ballot's order.

Donkey voting can reflect disinterest or protest voting, and such a vote could use a range of other strategies. They could vote in reverse ballot order, numbering from the bottom up; they could allocate their preferences randomly; they could leave their ballot paper blank. In my view, as an observer of elections for three or four decades, I believe an increasing number of people are choosing to just leave their ballot paper blank.

The mischief with a donkey vote, though, is that if there is a recurring pattern of donkey votes, such as down-the-ballot votes, these votes will overstate the real level of support for prospective candidates. Robson rotation is a response to the donkey vote, but only addresses down-the-ballot or up-the-ballot donkey votes.

It is difficult to assess how many donkey votes are cast and to what extent they influence election results. I suspect that most disinterested and protest voters leave their ballots blank. One thing is clear; having Robson rotation makes it impractical to provide how-to-vote cards to electors, as having a different order of candidates on ballot papers to those shown on how-to-vote cards distributed outside the booth could confuse voters. In our view the detriment of Robson rotation is clear: the benefit is not.

Other impacts of the amendment would be an increased cost to the Electoral Commission and an increased level of scrutiny that would be required for the counting of ballot papers. In addition, some of the amendments to this bill that the opposition has filed rely on this definition of how-to-vote card being maintained in the act, so to remove it would undermine our upcoming proposals in relation to how-to-vote cards. For these reasons the Liberal opposition opposes the amendment and those that are consequent upon it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. We are also happy to use this as a test clause for a series of the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments. The effect of this rotation method has been well explained in this chamber, so I do not need to go through it again.

In the 2010 election in Victoria, the Victorian Electoral Commission counted donkey votes as part of its survey of ballot papers. In the districts surveyed, the median donkey vote was 1 per cent of the total formal vote. In South Australia, a donkey vote analysis was not included in the analysis of ballot papers undertaken following the 2010 election as there was data on the level of donkey votes from previous elections indicating that the extent of donkey votes was extremely low. In many cases, for those districts with higher levels of donkey votes, it was determined that this likely reflected that the order of candidates on the ballot paper was such that many electors could have been expected to have preferred the candidates in that order.

Implementing a Robson rotation method of printing ballot papers would have significant implications on the use of how-to-vote cards in South Australia and, importantly, considerable resource implications. The need for more resources would come at considerable cost, and election results would likely be delayed. It is clear from the statistics available that the benefit of such a change would be negligible, and it is for those reasons that the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I oppose the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments, and I oppose introduction of Robson rotation for similar reasons as have been outlined by the government and the opposition. It is easy to suggest that it is obviously in the interests of Labor and Liberal to oppose Robson rotation because they are the ones most likely to stock the booths with how-to-vote cards, but I think it is important that minor parties and Independents have that opportunity to distribute how-to-vote cards. That may be on the day, it may be through the mail or, increasingly, online, but I think it is very important that they have that opportunity, to make it easy for people who want to support them to vote for them as well.

I do not think the introduction of Robson rotation, while undoubtedly fairer than the current system, is warranted. I think the donkey vote is greatly over-inflated as a potential benefit. I have certainly watched draws many times, avidly waiting to see whether you have the candidate above the main opposition candidate, but ultimately I am not confident that it has been a decisive factor in any race I have been aware of or involved in. I do not consider that it is necessary.

In time, when we end up with electronic voting, which I think we inevitably will sometime in the future, I suspect this issue will come into its own because there will be the interactive ability for people to know that they have cast a valid vote before they lock it in, so to speak; whereas I think that it is too much of a risk that people will be disenfranchised because, without the benefit of how-to-vote cards, they may not be confident of filling in a formal vote, although most people are.

I think most people in this place would have had the same experience as I have had. In the period I have been involved in politics, I think the number of people taking how-to-vote cards decreases at every election. Partly that is the fault of the Liberal and Labor parties because they have so overdone the presence at the booths that I think people have become much more keen just to rifle through without taking any how-to-vote cards.

I suspect that, in time, how-to-vote cards will become irrelevant, but I do not think that time is now, and I would be concerned that people not having that information to hand will make it more likely that they will inadvertently make an informal vote. I do think that people who wish to make no vote generally just leave the ballot paper blank or leave a friendly message. I oppose this amendment.

The Hon. M. Parnell's amendment negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I now put the question that new subclause (2) as proposed to be inserted by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries be so inserted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On a procedural issue, if this is an alternative to the Wade amendment, if this amendment gets up, it is still—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): No.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It does not preclude a subsequent amendment?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): My advice is that it could be an alternative to yours, so we will ask you to move your amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. The Robson rotation issue is quite different from the Liberal how-to-vote card regime but, unfortunately, because they cohabit in the definition clause, we have brought them up now. Hopefully, I can provide some clarity for members.

Because of a late amendment to try to facilitate split tickets being accepted as how-to-vote cards within the opposition's proposed regime, it was suggested by the table that we incorporate them. So, Wade sets 2, 3 and 4 are now all incorporated in [Wade-5]. I will be asking members to refer to [Wade-1] and [Wade-5]. I apologise for any confusion, but the table thought that would help proceedings. It has been confirmed by the table that this would be an appropriate point for me to address what I call the opposition alternative how-to-vote card regime. If honourable members would care to treat this as a test clause for what was originally [Wade-3] 1 and what I will actually be moving is [Wade-5] 1. I move:

Page 3, after line 10—

After the present contents of clause 4 (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 4(1), definition of how-to-vote card—delete the definition and substitute:

how-to-vote card means a card, in the form of a ballot paper, indicating the manner in which a vote should be recorded by a voter, and includes a split how-to-vote card (within the meaning of section 66A);

This amendment is the first part of the Liberal opposition's how-to-vote card amendments and, as such, I indicate that we will be seeking this to be treated as a test amendment.

This amendment is an extension of the proposal I have discussed with members to introduce a registration process for how-to-vote cards consistent with the select committee recommendations. This amendment and its consequential amendments accommodate the well-worn practice of using a split ticket on election day. It also allows the split tickets to be submitted to the commissioner for display in polling booths. I would now like to outline the Liberal proposal and how we believe it addresses the mischief.

At the last election, the Labor Party used dodgy how-to-vote cards in four electorates. The cards used the light blue colours traditionally used by Family First and included the phrase, Put Your Family First. The cards identified the respective Family First candidate as first preference, with an arrow and the words 'Start voting here'. They suggested a preference flow placing the ALP candidate above the Liberal candidate.

The Family First Party's authorised how-to-vote cards in those particular electorates recommended that their supporters place the Family First candidate first with preferences to the Liberal candidate before the Labor candidate. The dodgy cards were organised by the ALP State Secretary and accepted by each of the ALP candidates. To her credit, the member for Bright chose not to allow such a card to be used in her electorate. The community was rightly outraged. This council established a select committee to inquire into the use of bogus how-to-vote cards.

Clearly, the Electoral Act, as it stands, needs reform. The fact that the government has tabled this bill is acknowledgment that the Labor Party now accepts that reform is needed. All jurisdictions in Australia have legislation in place which regulates how-to-vote cards. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have systems requiring pre-registration of how-to-vote cards, and that is what is proposed in these amendments. They are most similar, if you like, to the Victorian legislation, where the handing out of printed electoral material, except for registered how-to-vote cards, is banned within 400 metres of the entrance to, or within, a polling booth on polling day.

Across jurisdictions, there is a clear trend to deal with the matter of misleading how-to-vote cards through regulation, rather than by introducing a blanket ban on their distribution. The select committee on matters related to the 2010 election, which was established by this council, recommended at recommendation 3 that the Electoral Act be amended so that only how-to-vote cards or second preference how-to-vote cards which had been lodged with the Electoral Commission at least seven days before election day are allowed to be distributed in the vicinity of a polling place on polling day.

The government bill proposed registration, but it would only allow registration, what in our view far too late, that is, two days before polling, and it does not require public disclosure. The opposition amendments on the other hand reflect the committee's recommendations and the practice interstate and use a one-week time frame with public disclosure. In so doing, the amendments propose to introduce one of the most transparent, and I believe one of the most likely to be successful, how-to-vote card regimes in Australia.

Labor was able to get away with its deceit at the last election for two main reasons. Firstly, because our electoral laws allow parties and groups to hand out cards which allow a party to advocate a vote for another party first. The average voter would be surprised to know that Labor Party members were advocating a vote for Family First. In fact, I doubt that they would concede that any party showed people how to vote for another party when their own candidate was in competition with the candidate preferenced first on that card. Our amendments seek to ban that practice. Proposed section 66A(5)(d)(i) of my amendment says that a candidate or someone on their behalf can only register a card that has them at number one on the card. Our amendments propose that only cards which are registered with the commissioner at least eight days from election day can be distributed.

Secondly, Labor was able to get away with its deceit because our existing electoral laws did not prevent a party creating dodgy how-to-vote cards that took the language and look of another party's card. The Put Your Family First cards were deliberately created to look and read like Family First how-to-vote cards. My amendments maintain the government's substantially similar provisions to require all cards registered to have a similar appearance. That means that if a party wants to take on the branding of another party, it would have to do so across all the how-to-vote cards registered with the Electoral Commission and they would need to do so publicly and well ahead of polling day.

The Liberal proposal is clear and consistent. The government's how-to-vote card proposal, on the other hand, is full of loopholes. Under the government's proposal, the Electoral Commissioner is not required to publicly disclose how-to-vote cards submitted in advance of election day. If a dodgy how-to-vote card was lodged, it is possible no-one would know until election day which provides no improvement on the current system at all. The limited time frame may be exacerbated by the media blackout imposed from 6pm on the Wednesday before polling day under the Broadcasting Services Act of the commonwealth. If a dodgy card was lodged during this time, another party would not be able to use paid advertising to expose that fact.

A party or candidate, which chose not to register a voting compartment how-to-vote card under section 66, could under the government's proposal lodge a number of different booth how-to-vote cards which may not bear any resemblance to each other. A party could legally register both a standard how-to-vote card and a dodgy design in amongst a mass of cards, and this would only need to occur two days before election day. On this point it is worth noting that the Greens did not lodge a section 66 card for two-thirds of House of Assembly districts at the 2010 election. By noting that I do not intend to imply that the Greens had engaged in any misleading behaviour but I simply raise that to demonstrate that it is a real possibility that no card was lodged under section 66.

For all of these reasons, the how-to-vote card registration regime proposed by the government is largely tokenistic. It would not prevent a repeat of the 2010 dodgy how-to-vote card scenario. Members would remember that in 2010 the government also introduced a bill that allegedly sought to deal with the issue of dodgy how-to-vote cards. That bill was found lacking by a select committee of this place and again would have allowed a repeat of 2010. So, in my view and that of the opposition, the government is either incompetent or was unable to develop legislation to deal with an identified problem or, alternatively, was completely unwilling to introduce legislation that effectively outlawed dodgy practices. Unfortunately, both possibilities are highly credible.

Our amendments also introduce a series of new measures to increase transparency. Our amendments provide for public disclosure of registered how-to-vote cards by the Electoral Commissioner on a website as soon as reasonably practicable after receipt and in any case not later than 5pm on the eighth day before election day. Section 66A(2) requires political parties to provide the copy in electronic format to expedite this process.

Our amendments maintain consistency between voting tickets lodged under section 63, polling booth cards lodged under section 66 and the how-to-vote cards registered with the commission before election day. This will ensure that a party's preferences are transparent and not subject to last minute deception. This amendment reflects recommendation two of the select committee report. Our amendments also allow a maximum of one how-to-vote card per candidate for use on election day. This would prevent the mystery of potentially dozens of cards being distributed by each candidate to obscure which card will be distributed on the day. Restricting candidates to one registered card also minimises the administrative burden on the Electoral Commissioner to register them.

Our amendments provide a flexibility to accommodate the practice of all using open tickets, both in polling booths on election day, provided that they are accompanied by a statement that the elector must express a preference for all other candidates as the elector sees fit. This was incorporated in our amendments following discussions with the Greens. Our amendments to section 126 are consequential to this, as our understanding and the advice that we have received is the practice of using open tickets at present could be seen as a technical breach of the act. The section 126 amendment makes an exception for these cards.

Our amendments provide powers for the presiding officer of a polling booth to compel a person distributing a how-to-vote card to produce it for inspection and to hand over any cards they have not registered with the commissioner. Our amendments allow decisions made by the Electoral Commissioner regarding registration of a how-to-vote card to be reviewed.

The combined result of this is a robust regime, a regime that will effectively prohibit dodgy how-to-vote card practices, unlike the government's proposal. It enshrines transparency and integrity around legitimate how-to-vote cards. Elections are all about voters; they are not about political parties, not about election tactics or trickery; they should be about democratic choice. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these changes with a number of members and I hope that members see them as an appropriate balance that enhances democratic choice and protects the integrity of the process. I commend the amendments to the council.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I did give the honourable member a fair bit of latitude, because it is a very complex bill. I appreciate that and I am prepared to do that with other members. It was a lengthy contribution, but it was appropriate. I am just indicating that I think with a complex bill like this and the complex nature of these matters that latitude is appropriate. I call the minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Firstly, I have a question. Has the Hon. Stephen Wade sought advice whether this amendment may tend to impair the freedom of political communication provided for under the South Australian constitution?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There is no provision for the freedom of communication under the South Australian constitution.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is an implied provision.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps I could educate the minister. That implied right is actually under the commonwealth constitution, not the South Australian constitution. All I could say is that Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria all have preregistration of how-to-vote cards. Our provisions are extremely similar to those in Victoria. I am not aware of any challenge to the Victorian provisions under that implied right. In fact, I would think that these provisions would be very likely to receive a lot of favour from the High Court.

Let us remember the High Court's consideration of that implied right in the context of the Corneloup case. In relation to the Corneloup case, the High Court said that you need a structure for freedoms. You need a structure for the freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of speech. What this bill provides is a significant protection of the democratic rights of freedom of communication, because it provides transparency. It does not stop you saying anything you like; you just have to do it in an orderly, timely manner. If this government wants to throw up furphies about the constitution to avoid what the community expects, so be it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the systems that the other jurisdictions have in place are somewhat different from what is being proposed by the Hon. Stephen Wade, and my question is quite straightforward: has he sought advice or not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The answer is no, and perhaps I could go on to educate the minister even further. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Russell Wortley and I (I hope I have not missed anybody; I am sure there are a couple more members) were all members of the select committee that made that recommendation. That recommendation, as I understand it, has not been rebutted by the government in recent times. Let us be frank: whether or not it is the Liberal proposal of eight days declaration before or the Labor Party proposal for two days before, it is still an orderly structure for political communication, and if my amendment is in jeopardy, so is yours.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes these amendments, and in relation to the Hon. Mr Wade's last comment that, if his amendments are out of line then so too are ours, I am happy to take some time explaining why that is not so. To speak generally about this amendment first, the government's bill seeks to regulate the use of how-to-vote cards (and so does this amendment). However, unlike the government, the opposition proposes to directly interfere with a party, candidate and campaigner's ability to alter the preferences they wish to advocate during the election period, in addition to prohibiting the use of second preference how-to-vote cards.

Under the proposed amendment, a participant cannot register multiple how-to-vote cards. Parties and candidates may submit a how-to-vote card under section 66A that differs slightly from the how-to-vote submitted under section 66. However, section 66A(5)(d) requires that the second how-to-vote (and there are three aspects to it), first, be of substantially the same appearance; secondly, indicate a first preference for the relevant candidate (section 66A(5)(d)(i)); and, thirdly, follow the preferences on the or one of the registered voting tickets lodged under section 63.

The interpretive provision, substantially the same appearance, has been directly taken from the government's bill. However, the provision relating to preference order has been removed. Accordingly, the effect of section 66A(5)(d) clearly prohibits any change of preferences in addition to the prohibition on the use of second preference how-to-votes.

The proposed amendment imposes a significant impediment upon communications between candidates, campaigners and electors, enforcing adherence to preferences lodged on a ticket weeks prior to polling day. To hold a person to decisions formed weeks prior to polling day unreasonably stifles the capacity of political participants to respond flexibly to possible new developments during the course of an election campaign. We know that things do shift and move very quickly in campaigns, or can do.

The opposition has misunderstood the real mischief behind the use of second preference how-to-votes, and in doing so created a registration regime that is overly prescriptive and prohibitive. This will prove to be significantly more burdensome on parties, candidates and campaigners and will undoubtedly have resource implications for the commissioner.

In addition to the unworkability of this arrangement, it is the government's view that the amendments pose a significant risk of impairing the freedom of political communication provided for under the South Australian constitution, and we believe it is open to be legally challenged and likely to be so. For these reasons, the government opposes this series of amendments, for which this is the test provision.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: As you have indicated, sir, there are quite a number of amendments that deal with this matter of how-to-vote cards, so I might make some general remarks about those. The Hon. Mr Wade said that his amendments would introduce a robust regime. I would suggest that it is a restrictive regime that is quite antithetical to democracy. I have serious misgivings about the government's amendments—I consider that they go far enough. I cannot see how the notion that we would have an electoral commissioner sitting around with a Pantone colour chart, measuring fonts and making sure that all these how-to-vote cards are how they are supposed to be, and that no-one is trying to copy each other, can possibly end in anything other than restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of political action.

We know that Labor, Liberal and Family First all use red, white and blue—colours on the Australian flag, colours used in virtually every Liberal democracy in the world—so the idea that we could somehow patent a particular look is quite impossible, or certainly not feasible.

That is not to say that people should be able to have fake how-to-vote cards. What is certainly wrong—and no-one is questioning this—is for anyone to distribute a how-to-vote card purporting to be from another party which is not. If someone were to do up a mock Liberal Party or Labor Party, or any other party, how-to-vote card which was not, in fact, theirs and then distribute it—and this has been known to happen—that certainly would be wrong and is already prohibited.

What we have here is the issue that arose in 2010. I dispute the notion that that was some great fraud perpetrated on the South Australian people. I think there is no doubt the Labor Party went too far in using the T-shirts and using the words, Put your Family First, but the how-to-vote cards also said, in big letters, 'Preference Labor', they were also authorised by the Labor Party, so they were not representing themselves as Family First how-to-vote cards. You can argue that they were, and I understand that that is a valid argument but, certainly, in the select committee process not a single person was produced who said, 'I followed that how-to-vote card because I thought it was from Family First.' It is clear from the evidence that there was no material effect on the outcome in any of those seats.

I think it is broadly agreed, including by the Labor Party, or by its former leader, that there was a bridge too far on that occasion, but I think it would be a grave overreaction to come to a point where we are regulating and prescribing in the most minute detail what sort of material can be distributed in elections and on election day. In my view, it is not illegitimate or dishonest to advocate a vote for someone other than your preferred candidate for the purpose of attracting preferences from those voters. I would be amazed if certainly the Liberal and Labor members have not been involved in that process on many occasions.

It is perfectly legitimate to say to someone, 'If you are voting Greens or Family First or for an Independent, we want your second preference because we think our party more aligns with the principles that your party is about. While you are quite entitled, of course, to vote for that other party, we want your preferences because we think we are more in line with the principles that you support than is the opposing major party.' That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and I think it would be a crying shame if we got to a point where people are forbidden to hand out on election day material which basically says, 'You are going to vote Greens or Family First, or some other minor party or independent, we want your preference.'

I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, provided that that how-to-vote card does not represent itself as coming from or being authorised by the other party. To try to react to what happened in the 2010 election with an incredibly prescriptive regime I think is antithetical to freedom of political expression.

I would be particularly concerned that for minor parties and Independents it would place a very onerous burden on them. I would be appalled if an Independent candidate for parliament, who had gone to the trouble of getting themselves on the ballot paper—which is no mean feat in itself, as we know—found themselves wrapped over the knuckles by a polling officer and told that they or their supporters cannot hand out how-to-vote cards any more because they did not fit the prescribed regulations or they were not lodged in time. I think that would be a real restriction on the ability of people to put themselves forward for political office if that is what they choose to do.

I oppose the Hon. Mr Wade's amendments. I am certainly not that comfortable with the government's provisions, either, because I think we are overreacting and overcorrecting by trying to set up a regime where you could have the most arcane arguments about literally getting down to fonts and colours and what people have lodged or what people have handed out. Provided that people are not misrepresenting their material as being authorised by or belonging to another candidate, I do not consider that it is wrong in principle to advocate a vote for another candidate other than the candidate that you actually prefer on the basis of trying to attract preferences, on the basis of saying to their voters, 'We are more in line with your philosophy than the other major party so we think you should preference our candidate.'

I do not consider that is wrong and I do not consider that is dishonest. I think it would be most unfortunate if we got to a point where we were putting genuine restrictions on freedom of political expression and action. If someone wants to turn up to a polling booth and say, 'Well, my guy really supports'—whatever it might be, euthanasia, or opposes duck shooting, or opposes raw milk syndicates, or whatever it is—'and I think you should vote for that person.' Again, provided they are not misrepresenting that person's position that sort of thing ought to be legitimate.

I am really concerned that we are putting harsh restrictions on the operation of a proper democracy by going down this track of over-regulating, over-prescribing the content of how-to-vote cards and the content of political material.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I want to start my contribution by referring to something that the Hon. Stephen Wade said in his contribution. He made the observation that at the last election in two-thirds of the seats the Green party did not lodge a how-to-vote card with the Electoral Commission under section 66 of the Electoral Act—and that is exactly right. However, it would be very unfair for people to think that that failure to lodge those how-to-vote cards was somehow born out of inadvertence or a lack of caring about the democratic process. It was simply because we were not allowed to, given the type of how-to-vote card that we wanted to present to voters.

What I mean by that is that in those seats—and from memory it was some 30 of the 47 seats (or even a bit more than that)—the how-to-vote card that Green volunteers were handing out at polling booths basically said, 'Vote 1 Green and then number the rest as you see fit. Use your own judgement. You decide where to put your preferences.' In that regard, I do agree with the Hon. Stephen Wade when he said it should all be about the voters.

Our view, and an approach that we often take in seats, is that if it is all about the voters then we do need to trust them to make their own decisions. That is what we did in the bulk of lower house seats in the last election. The reason that the poster that appeared in each voting compartment had a blank notation that said, 'The Greens did not lodge a how-to-vote card'—where someone would expect to see the Green how-to-vote card—is because of a provision of the regulations which prohibits the Electoral Commissioner from publishing a how-to-vote card that has anything on it other than a complete numbering of all the candidates in order. In other words, the commissioner was bound not to publish that particular how-to-vote card that we were using.

We were, it is probably fair to say, upset at how it all transpired because the impression that some voters would have had was just wrong, especially if they were perhaps at a small polling booth where there was not a herd of people out the front handing things out and maybe the only information they had was what they saw in the polling compartment that said the Greens did not have a how-to-vote card. I will not debate it at any length now because we get to it later as an issue but I just make the point that that is why.

When we come to the Liberal amendments, effectively the choice that we have between us, in terms of the government amendments on the one hand and the Liberal amendments on the other, is whether the extent of regulation should involve itself just in what I call 'the look and the feel of the card' or should go to the content of the card.

The government's amendments focus on look and feel because that was the problem that was identified back in 2010, that people were confused by colour and they were confused by some of the language. It was not so much to do with the actual numbers and the order of preferences; they were confused by the words Put Your Family First and they were confused by the colour. The government amendment seek to redress that wrong. It seeks to make it more difficult to pass off your how-to-vote card for that belonging to someone else. The Liberal amendments, on the other hand, seek to lock in the actual numbers on the how-to-vote cards some period in advance of polling day.

We have had two suggestions made: the Hon. Stephen Wade referred to it being locked in eight days prior, and the minister referred to it being locked in earlier than that (I cannot remember whether it was weeks or months). That might be something that the Hon. Stephen Wade might want to address because it seems to me that we have pre-polling more than eight days before an election, so I need to know whether there is an issue around that. Certainly, that seems to be the choice we are facing: should we lock in numbers, or is it really just the look, the feel and the style that we should be regulating?

Much has been said of the implied right, under the Australian constitution, to free political communication. I think that is an issue in this debate. My feeling is that when we talk about the right to communicate it probably has more to do with content than colour and style, and therefore I think the Liberal amendments are more likely to infringe that right of political communication than the government's amendments do. So I think that is an issue.

There are two other issues that concern me; the first is, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan referred to, the implications on Independents or small party candidates who may well turn up on polling day with some photocopied how-to-vote cards and be told that they cannot hand them out because they have not fulfilled a requirement for advance pre-lodgement. I think that is a concern.

The other concern I have is that under the Liberal regime, once you have locked in the numbers, the order of preference on a how-to-vote card, you are thereafter prevented from changing that. In other words, on election day you cannot hand out a how-to-vote card that has a different order than the one you have pre-lodged with the Electoral Commission.

Whilst at a practical level I think most parties and candidates do not tend to change their order late in the piece, it is not that difficult to imagine circumstances where you might want to. I can think of three examples that could arise in the last week of a campaign. One is where someone you were preferencing says something in that last week that you strongly disagree with, and you regret that you decided to put them second and now decide that you want to put them last. That would be one scenario.

Another one would be where a candidate you were going to put last convinced you, in the last week, that they actually had such brilliant and most excellent policies that you now really wanted to put them on second. You would be precluded from doing that. I guess a third situation would be when information comes out about a candidate that you did not know about, perhaps no-one knew about, whether it is something in the criminal realm or some dubious personal conduct. Who knows what it might be, but something—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Organisations that they might be members of.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the minister says, it might turn out that they are a member of some illegal or undesirable organisation. If this information comes out late in the piece, you would be precluded from changing your how-to-vote card and handing out something different.

I know that much is often made of the Pauline Hanson situation. Time has dulled my memory, but my understanding is that she was endorsed by the Liberal Party and that there was some difficulty in effectively unendorsing her. I think they might have been able to change how-to-vote cards at the last minute but—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: They couldn't change candidates.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: They could not change candidates, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan says. While it might seem very neat, on paper, to lock people in to a preference order at an early stage, there are enough situations that could arise where that would lead to a very unjust situation, where, in a democracy, people are not allowed to use the latest information to make an up-to-date choice about what recommendations they want to make to their supporters about preferences.

The Greens have always been more inclined to support the government position, which is one of focusing on the problems of the 2010 election, rather than the more expansive system that the Liberal Party has now put forward of a higher level of regulation. I am happy to hear from the Hon. Stephen Wade, if he has any response to that question, why last-minute changes should be denied, because that appears to be the intent of the Liberal amendments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In addressing both the comments of the minister and of the Hon Mark Parnell, I want to highlight this furphy of inflexibility. The fact of the matter is that we already have inflexibility. Under sections 63 and 66, it provides that, within three or four days of a nomination closing, you have to register your registered voting ticket and, under the registered voting ticket, which determines the voting allocation of those electors who put 1 in the box, that cannot be changed.

You go into election day, and the scrutineers will be applying it that night, no matter what change of heart your party might have had. At the last election, it is my recollection that those sets of registered voting tickets determined 36,000 votes. So, if the government was so concerned about inflexibility, it would be thinking about it there. Also, what about section 66, the voting tickets in the compartment? The Hon. Mark Parnell and the government are not suggesting that the party should be able to whip into the voting compartment and change the voting ticket inside the booth.

Of course, there will be late developments, but these provisions focus on material that is presented as a how-to-vote card. The definition before you says '"how-to-vote card" means a card, in the form of a ballot paper, indicating the manner in which a vote should be recorded by a voter'. It is certainly the intention of the opposition that political messages could be sent by matter of material that is not in the form of a ballot paper. That material, of course, is less misleading than a how-to-vote card because it requires people to read it to get the message.

The problem with the Hon. Dennis Hood's electors at the 2010 election was that, as they were rushing into this polling booth, rushing past the phalanx of how-to-vote card distributors that political parties throw on them, particularly in marginal seats, frustrated about the queue they were experiencing in the polling booth, they just wanted to get in and get out.

They see a card that has 'Family First One' on it; they do not read the fine print at the bottom, which says 'Michael Brown'. They do not realise, 'Of course, Michael Brown is the state secretary of the Labor Party; this must be a Labor Party card.' The fact of the matter is that, if something is presented as a how-to-vote card, it is particularly potent. That is what we are targeting—we are targeting fake how-to-vote cards. That is what this all about.

If I can save the minister the need to address this issue, my understanding is that the substantially similar provisions of both the government and the opposition relate to substantially similar between different cards of the same party. They do not relate to whether or not the cards are similar to that of any other party.

In relation to the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell, I vigorously dispute the suggestion that the only difference between us and them is consistency. I remind honourable members that we are committed to public disclosure; the government is not. We are committed to a maximum of one how-to-vote card per party; the government is not. We are trying to facilitate the practice of open tickets, and I pay tribute to the Greens as being pioneers of open tickets. If the Democrats were pioneers of split tickets, the Greens are pioneers of open tickets. May a thousand flowers grow so that more minor parties might give us more electoral innovations.

We are not trying to stifle political debate. What we are trying to do is to provide a bit of integrity. The Labor Party fails to appreciate the damage that it did not only to its own credibility but to the public's confidence in the electoral system by its behaviour the last time. I agree with the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, I did use the word 'robust', but I am more than happy to use some of the descriptors he used in terms of it being very rigorous. We are happy as a party to submit to the rigor of our own regime. This legislation does not say that Labor Party how-to-vote cards cannot be dodgy. This says that all how-to-vote cards cannot be dodgy, and we believe the community expects nothing less.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We are still talking about the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment, of course, and I do not intend to make a long contribution, but there are a few points that need to be made. I made quite an extensive second reading speech, which I refer members to, to give the sort of detail of Family First's view on this particular bill, but the bottom line for us on this bill, in particular, as I said in some detail in my second reading contribution, is that it just does not go far enough, that it does leave the door open for substantially the same thing that happened in the 2010 election to happen again, and from Family First's perspective that is just not good enough.

The Hon. Mr Wade's amendments address those issues to our satisfaction and in such a way that I cannot see how the events of 2010 on state election day can be repeated. That is, after all, the objective of this bill. If members care to cast their mind back they will remember that the then premier, Mike Rann, to his credit actually said publicly that what happened on election day in his words—as I recall and I think I have got this quote right—was 'wrong'.

I think we would all agree that it was wrong, and what we need to do is pass a bill through this chamber and, indeed, through this parliament that does not allow the same thing to happen again. Unfortunately the bill the government has presented will allow substantially the same thing to happen again as it happened in 2010. We will not be part of that.

We have heard a little bit today about the amendments that the Hon. Mr Wade is proposing, and particularly the one we are speaking of now, curtailing the potential for freedom of speech or political expression, as it was put. I think there is some truth in that. It does place some limit on what can and cannot be done, that is the intention of the amendment after all, but it is only appropriate to curtail expression or speech of any form when that is abused. Of course, we must remember we are here today because that freedom was abused in 2010, so Family First supports the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate the contributions to date. This is a complex and important issue. The Hon. Stephen Wade has been talking about his desire for consistency between what are effectively three different how-to-vote cards that have three different purposes. Just so members are very clear, when we are talking about section 63 how-to-votes, that is effectively what they call the restorative ticket. If someone erroneously on polling day votes No. 1 for your candidate, that is the ticket that actually validates their vote. In other words, what the parties and the candidates say to the Electoral Commission is, 'Look, if someone has just put No. 1, this is what they meant,' and the rest of the numbers are then provided and the vote becomes a valid vote, so they are section 63s.

The section 66s we have talked about is the poster that is inside each voting compartment and currently it does not have to be the same as the section 63. In fact, candidates would nearly always lodge a section 63 but, as I have said before, we have not had the ability to lodge section 66 because of the regulations. The third how-to-vote card is the one that you hand out outside the polling booth.

The difficulty of having them all consistent would arise in the examples that we gave before: where information arises, you find something out about a candidate or a late change of heart. The Hon. Stephen Wade said it does not stop you telling your voters that you have had a change of heart and you need to do something different, but it means that, if you are going to have the Liberal's consistency model, the how-to-vote volunteers (the people you have at the polling booth) would have to effectively hand a letter to each voter which says, 'Look, when you get into that compartment you will see that we are recommending to vote No. 2 for this party. We have now had a change of heart because we have found out some things that mean that we no longer want you to do that. We actually want you to put that person last.'

What the Liberal amendment prevents us from doing in that situation is actually handing out a new how-to-vote card which says, 'This is now what we want you to do.' If voters line up the one they have in their hand and the one that is on the poster, they might see that they are different and that might confuse them—well, so what? At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the ability for the most up-to-date information that is relevant to the people who are handing out to be presented to voters.

I am not convinced that having this absolute consistency locked in well in advance actually serves our democracy that well. I appreciate what the Hon. Dennis Hood is saying. He sees that there may well be other loopholes that could be achieved. The government's bill does fix the loophole that was identified back in 2010 by insisting that you do not pass off something that is of your creation pretending that it is somebody else's. I think we have fixed that problem. I think the Liberal proposal goes too far and creates a whole lot of additional problems which lead to a less democratic outcome and it leads to people not being able to tell voters the most up-to-date information. The Greens will not be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade, before I call you, my understanding is that people who hand out how-to-vote cards are not able to solicit votes anyway.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to highlight the fact that the Hon. Mark Parnell is, as I mentioned before, trying to put forward a very simplistic contrast—the government without consistency, the opposition with consistency—and, therefore, he is going to vote against the opposition's amendment. I think the Greens need to be more honest about this. If the opposition amendment has valuable attributes that should be explored, then it should be voted for. If there are issues that they have particular issues with and they require further work, that is often what this council does. So let me remind you of the benefits above and beyond consistency in our proposal.

The government's proposal does not have public disclosure. We are requiring a maximum of one how-to-vote card per candidate before the election. With the government's model, all the parties and candidates could flood the Electoral Commission with hundreds of how-to-vote cards two days before the election and goodness knows what is going to turn up on polling day. Again, the Greens year after year have advocated the benefits of open tickets—but no, we don't want to worry about that, we are really concerned about consistency!

Let me talk about consistency. In my view, the risk of electors being misled comes up every election. We have two in the next 12 months and we have teams of political hacks out there trying to think of the best strategy to win the next election. We know, from the Labor Party at the most recent election and from other political parties including my own over years past, that they will do things that the public does not find acceptable. I think the risk of skulduggery comes up at every seat in every state in every national election every time.

As to these late breaking news stories, shock horror policies, I spoke to the State Director of the Liberal Party. He said that in his three decades of service, he has never been in a position where he has needed to change his preference order. If our state director does not need to face that risk within three decades, then I am willing to accept—and my party is willing to accept—the constraints of this regime so that at every booth in every seat throughout this state electors do not have to run the risk of more skulduggery.

The committee divided on the Hon. S.G. Wade's amendment:

AYES (10)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (9)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A.
Maher, K.J. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (2)
Lucas, R.I. Zollo, C.

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

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

Page 3, line 15 [clause 5(2), inserted subsection (6a)]—Delete 'of 5 years' and substitute:

expiring 1 year after polling day of the general election second occurring after the person's appointment under this section

The amendment proposes to remove the 10-year limit on the term of appointment of the deputy commissioner as proposed by the bill. The amendment would allow for the deputy commissioner to be appointed for up to eight years, with the term of appointment expiring one year after a scheduled general election.

The primary purpose of the amendment and the following consequential amendment is to reduce the risk of partisan political influence on electoral officials. As we approach an election, the temperature rises. If an electoral official's contract is up for renewal near the end of a parliamentary term, the opposition's view is that there is an increased risk of at least the perception of political influence on that official. In our view that risk is reduced by putting the appointment as near as is possible to the start of the parliamentary term. We propose to do that in the case of the deputy commissioner by specifying that a deputy commissioner's contract should expire one year after a general election. This part of the electoral cycle is least likely to interfere with the management of the commission, and making the appointment at this time would reduce the risk of undue pressure being applied to the deputy commissioner or the perception of same.

The amendment allows for eight-year terms in any single contract. There are two possible expiry dates to the deputy commissioner's contract, one being the date one year following the election subsequent to the appointment, and the other being one year following the second election after the appointment. The bill as it stands proposes that the maximum term of employment of the deputy commissioner should be five years, renewable up to a maximum of 10 consecutive years. Our view is that after 10 years, if a person is operating effectively in the role, why should they not be able to be reappointed. The impartiality of the deputy commissioner is not enhanced by having a specified upper time limit to the length of appointment.

I note that no other state has a limit on the number of years a deputy commissioner can serve. In order to enhance the independence of the deputy commissioner, and thereby the commission, I urge members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The bill seeks to limit the term of the deputy commissioner; this amendment lengthens the limitation from five years essentially to eight years. A subsequent amendment deals with reappointment. The government recognises the importance of longer-term appointments from a perspective of stability and consistency in long-term planning on electoral matters. However, this is provided for in the current tenure of the Electoral Commissioner.

In modifying the deputy commissioner's term and retaining the current appointment arrangements for the commissioner, the bill strikes a good balance. The appointment of the deputy commissioner for a term of five years fits with standard practice for senior Public Service appointments. Further, while some interstate legislation allows for the flexibility of appointing the commissioner for up to nine or 10 years, in practice five years has been the standard term of appointments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the minister's contribution is flawed. There is no other state that has limits on the deputy commissioner's appointment. The fact that it is practice to be five years is merely an interesting fact. In terms of continuity, she says that with the commissioner being appointed on a longer-term basis, I think up to the age of 65, therefore that is continuity, so we do not need it at the deputy commissioner level. That makes no allowance for particular teams that form over time. It may well be that the person who is the anchor, if you like, the person with the corporate knowledge, the person from whom you want to have continuity, may be the deputy commissioner. It may be more appropriate to look for your Electoral Commissioner to provide leadership for a period and move on, and for the deputy commissioner to be the anchor. To say that at least one can be there for a long time is hardly reassuring.

I urge the council to see the wisdom of protecting the impartiality of the commissioner through the mechanism we have placed, and it certainly does not entrench a person to a life appointment. The government is entitled to give them four-year terms. If the government wants freshness in the deputy commissioner role, they can give them a series of short-term contracts. This means that we make sure that the timing of those appointments is not in a way that could undermine impartiality and in that context support public confidence in the electoral system, but also not to put arbitrary time limits on people's service. If they are doing well, let them compete for their role and be reappointed. If they do not, somebody else will get the role.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I indicate very briefly that Dignity for Disability will support this amendment. It is my understanding that this is a recommendation from our parliamentary library's very own Jenni Newton-Farrelly, and she has obviously been doing some very in-depth and worthwhile research into electoral matters, and I think her review should be taken very seriously. For that reason we will support this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In order to avoid unnecessary divisions, I think it is probably fair to say that, because our democracy is fairly sophisticated, we often take positions like this for granted. We do not worry too much about electoral fraud being sheeted home to the officials because we have been blessed by having fairly uncorrupted electoral officials for a very long time.

I note that the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment is designed to put some distance between the next election and the reappointment of that person as deputy commissioner. I also note that the Electoral Commission does not just do state elections. They are also responsible for trade union elections and there is a whole manner of other elections that they are responsible for, for which this particular time frame is completely irrelevant. But it is probably fair to say that the single biggest job that they have is dealing with the state election.

The Greens are a little bit ambivalent. We can see that there is not a whole lot that hangs on this but, on balance, we are inclined to support the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In response to the Hon. Mark Parnell's points I would make two points. First, the minister to whom the Deputy Electoral Commissioner and Electoral Commissioner are responsible is a person who is elected in this electoral cycle, so it is much more likely they will be influenced.

I must say that I aspire to the sense of hope and decency that the honourable member has clearly found in governments. I find myself increasingly cynical. I thought I was on the same page as the honourable member when we were wanting to put extra transparency into the Residential Tenancies Tribunal appointments. Personally, I think deputy electoral commissioners are a lot riskier than Residential Tenancies Tribunal members.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade has a second amendment to clause 5, [Wade-1] 2.

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

Page 3, lines 18 to 20 [clause 5(2), inserted subsection (6b)]—Delete subsection (6b)

I regard this as consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to insert a new clause and, in doing so, I move [Wade-1] 3:

Page 6, after line 29—Insert:

13A—Amendment of section 47—Issue of writ

Section 47—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) In the case of a general election for the House of Assembly, the writ or writs for the elections in all House of Assembly districts must be issued 35 days before the date fixed for the polling in each district under section 48.

This amendment proposes to fix the date for issuing of the writs to be 35 days from election day. In January this year, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced not only the date of the federal election but also the date on which she would visit the Governor for the issuing of the writs. She did this eight months out from the election in spite of the fact that the commonwealth parliament does not have fixed terms. Similarly, in 2010, former premier Mike Rann gave advance notice of when the writs would be issued. That is former premier Mike Rann of the Labor government.

Both examples provide a clarity for the public and political parties about when the formal election campaign would commence. They also provide clarity to the Electoral Commission so that the commission can undertake forward planning, reducing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of electoral administration. In a state that has fixed terms we know exactly when the election day will be. Under section 28 of the Constitution Act the Governor must issue writs so that the general election is held on the third Sunday in March, in the fourth calendar year after the calendar year in which the last general election was held. It is set in stone.

There is no reason in our view why we should not also know exactly when the election period will commence. The minimum time possible for an election is 27 days, and the maximum is 54 days. Elections are first and foremost about democratic choice and the opportunity for citizens to exercise their vote. Clarifying the time allocated to conducting this vote so that voters can exercise their choice in an orderly fashion supports the fairness and integrity of the electoral process for all players. One part of this fairness is to ensure that the opportunity to vote is maximised.

In her report on the 2010 election the Electoral Commissioner recommended that the Electoral Act be amended to increase the period of time between close of nominations on polling day. I will quote her recommendation 2:

With continuing increases in electors voting by post creating logistical challenges to the postal service, particularly through regional South Australia, consideration should be given to extending the period between the close of nominations and the polling day to protect the voter franchise.

The election timetable is so cluttered with the various processes that the only feasible way to extend the time period between the close of nominations and the election day is to extend the election period itself. The opposition would, therefore, submit that the Electoral Commissioner's recommendation is that the whole election period be extended.

The constraints of the time frame were a factor in the problems arising around the issuing of postal votes at the 2010 election. To be issued with a postal vote a person must first receive an application for a postal vote, complete it, send it and then await confirmation of their eligibility before receiving their ballot papers. Running an election at minimum time frames or with minimal notice makes the organisation of the election and the issuing of such applications much more difficult.

In 2010 when these problems occurred we had a four-week campaign. The campaign was close to the shortest time possible and, as a result, only left small pockets of time available for each step along the way. In its submission to the Legislative Council the Select Committee on Matters Related to the General Election of 20 March 2010, the Liberal Party suggested that, 'There are structural problems in the electoral timetable in that the timing of the issuing of the writs may not allow enough time for postal votes to be sent out and returned by people living in, travelling through or working in some areas.' The select committee as a whole, a cross-party committee, recommended without dissent in recommendation 8 that the date of the issuing of the writ be fixed to facilitate planning for postal votes.

This amendment proposes to fix that time frame to 35 days so that there is sufficient time for voters to make arrangements for the casting of their vote, whether in person or by post. I would stress that this is not just about fixing the date of the issuing of the writs, it is fixing the date of the issuing of the writs with sufficient time available to facilitate the electoral administration, particularly the electoral administration of postal votes.

This amendment would provide more time and more clarity for efficient electoral administration and more fairness for candidates and parties. The amendment will end the political manoeuvres over the commencement of the formal campaign and put the rightful emphasis back on those for whom the election is about—voters—and maximising the opportunity to vote.

The government has filed an alternative date for the fixing of the issuing of the writs. I presume, therefore, that the government will be supporting my amendment but seeking to amend it. If I could anticipate it by referring to the fact that the government, as I understand it, is going to argue that the fixing of the date of the 30 days is better because it minimises the time spent in caretaker government. Its suggestion is that it would be of great concern for the government to have five less days to sign off ongoing projects.

I make the point there that from the day that a government is elected—for example, whichever government is elected on 15 March next year—from the day after, it knows exactly when the next election will be, it knows exactly the time frame within which it needs to manage all of its projects, its tender requirements and its signing of documents; it would not be surprised about those last five days suddenly coming upon it. If the caretaker issues are raised, I would suggest to the committee that they are a furphy. Whilst I am sure most Australians would like to see this government enter caretaker mode sooner rather than later, perhaps we need to consider this in the broader context of the time line that will last over future elections. As I previously said, setting the date at 35 days from the election ensures there is enough time to receive postal votes back from the commissioner.

I remind the committee again that recommendation 2 of the Electoral Commissioner and recommendation 8 of the select committee were talking about time frames, particularly with a focus on postal votes. Whether or not there is any change made to the postal vote application process, the postal vote process itself, even if they are being issued to people on the registered list, takes time. The Electoral Commissioner told us that her commission needs time. The commissioner made it quite clear that a 28 day period from the issuing of the writs made this turnaround time extremely tight and jeopardised votes being received.

The government is saying, 'Don't worry, two extra days will fix it,' but we do not think two extra days is enough. We urge the committee to look to a 35 day period. It is also our view that that is respectful of the volunteers who are involved in the process. Is all very well and good for the Labor Party—which, as John Button would put it, is fishing in a shallower and shallower gene pool—to rely on union officials who are willing to do the first day of the election campaign tasks on flexitime on a Thursday night and a Friday morning, but most other parties have to rely on volunteers. That is why our proposal sees the launch of the campaign being on a weekend. I urge members, in respect of having sufficient time for the orderly conduct of an election, to support the amendment I have moved.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment to Amendment No. 3 [Wade 1]—

Clause 13A, inserted subsection (2a)—delete '35 days' and substitute '30 days'

This amendment deletes 35 days and substitutes 30 days, so it is five days less than what is being proposed by the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment.

It is clear to the government that the general public wants brief campaigns. The government is also concerned about caretaker provisions, that those provisions being proposed by the Hon. Stephen Wade may be longer than they need to be. We believe that with 30 days we have the balance right; it is an appropriate length of time to set the issue of the writs prior to the set election date.

As I am sure honourable members are aware, there are sometimes matters outside of the government's control—particularly in relation to things like COAG, for instance—where a minimum period in caretaker mode is preferred because caretaker mode, if you like, paralyses the ability to do a great deal of work. So it is about getting the balance right between inactivity and allowing the election to proceed, and the government prefers 30 days to 35.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This is just a 30-second postscript, so that people cannot be spooked by COAG. Within the caretaker conventions it is always possible for the government to seek the agreement of the opposition to any matter that comes up during the caretaker period, and I can assure the minister that the opposition will be available next March for those five days if something does come up.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The advantage of both these amendments over the status quo is that for the first time we will know, in advance, the date on which we can have volunteers putting up Stobie pole posters, the date by which nominations need to be lodged, and when preference cards need to be lodged. Either of these options provides that level of certainty; in fact, it removes the one remaining element of surprise that has been hung onto by the government since the advent of fixed-term elections. Both these amendments do level the playing field and remove from the government of the day any element of surprise.

Whilst the Greens support the principle, the question before us is whether it should be 30 days or 35 days. Various arguments have been put in relation to COAG or the caretaker period, but the one that persuades the Greens more than anything else is that issue of the length of the campaign period. When you have fixed-term elections, we know that the campaign period is, in fact, a lot longer than the formal position after the issue of the writs. We think that, on the whole, the public prefer shorter, rather than longer, campaign periods, so we will be supporting the 30-day option.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: To be frank, it matters not to Family First whether we lengthen at all the period currently available, the status quo, which is 28 days to either 30 or 35, but it matters a lot whether it is 30 or 35 days because, at the moment, with the 28-day requirement, it ensures that the issuing will be on a Saturday, which has been the tradition for some time and which is suitable, I think, for parties that rely on volunteers to put up the corflutes and do the other activities that are required. For that reason, it is not acceptable to us that that occur on a Thursday, which would be the case if the 30-day limit were enacted. For that reason, we support the Liberal amendment and the 35-day period.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I indicate that I also will be supporting the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment negatived; new clause inserted.

Clause 14 passed.

New clauses 14A and 14B.

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

Page 6, after line 37—Insert:

14A—Amendment of section 66—Preparation of certain electoral material

Section 66(2)(d)—delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) in the case of how-to-vote cards, must—

(i) be received by the Electoral Commissioner not later than 4 days after the day for nomination; and

(ii) comply with the requirements set out in section 66A(5) (as those requirements apply to how-to-vote cards submitted by a candidate); and

(iii) not otherwise be a card that the Electoral Commissioner must refuse to register if it were being submitted for registration under section 66A; and

14B—Insertion of section 66A

After section 66 insert:

66A—Registration of how-to-vote cards

(1) Subject to this section, any person may, within the prescribed period, submit a how-to-vote card to the Electoral Commissioner for registration under this section.

(2) A person submitting a how-to-vote card under subsection (1) must, at the time of submitting the how-to-vote card, provide—

(a) the prescribed number of copies of the how-to-vote card; and

(b) an electronic version of the how-to-vote card, in a form and format prescribed by regulation.

(3) The following provisions apply to the submission of a how-to-vote card for registration by a person, other than a how-to-vote card submitted by or on behalf of a candidate:

(a) the person must make a declaration in the prescribed form;

(b) the person must provide a copy of the written consent of the candidate to whom the card indicates the first preference should be given;

(c) the person must provide the Electoral Commissioner with any prescribed material.

(4) The Electoral Commissioner must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after a how-to-vote card is submitted under subsection (1), and in any event by no later than 5 p.m. on the day on which the prescribed period ends, register the how-to-vote card unless the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that—

(a) the how-to-vote card does not comply with the requirements in—

(i) section 66(2) (other than the requirement in section 66(2)(d)(i)); and

(ii) subsection (5); or

(b) the how-to-vote card is a card that may not be submitted in accordance with subsection (7).

(5) The following requirements apply for the purposes of subsection (4)(a)(ii):

(a) the how-to-vote card must clearly identify the person, political party, organisation or group on whose behalf the card is to be distributed;

(b) in the case of a card that contains a logo, emblem or insignia belonging to the person, political party, organisation or group on whose behalf the card is to be distributed—the logo, emblem or insignia must be not less than the relevant prescribed size;

(c) the how-to-vote card must indicate the manner in which it is suggested that a vote should be recorded by a voter by—

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

(ii) if the card is submitted in relation to a House of Assembly election, having printed on each card, immediately before the surname of the candidate to whom the how-to-vote card relates, a figure '1' surrounded by a square together with a statement to the effect that the elector must express a preference for all other candidates as the elector sees fit;

(d) in the case of a how-to-vote card submitted by or on behalf of a candidate—

(i) the how-to-vote card must indicate that the first preference vote should be given to the candidate; and

(ii) if a voting ticket has, or 2 voting tickets have, been lodged under section 63 by or on behalf of the candidate and the how-to-vote card is of a kind referred to in paragraph (c)(i), the order or orders of the remaining preferences indicated on the how-to-vote card must be consistent with the order or orders of preferences set out on—

(A) that voting ticket; or

(B) 1 of the 2 voting tickets; or

(C) in the case of a split how-to-vote card—both of the 2 voting tickets,

(as the case requires); and

(iii) subject to subsection (6), if a how-to-vote card has been submitted for inclusion in posters under section 66 (the initial submitted how-to-vote card) by or on behalf of the candidate, the how-to-vote card must have substantially the same appearance as the initial submitted how-to-vote card;

(e) the how-to-vote card must not—

(i) be likely to induce an elector to mark the vote of the elector otherwise than in accordance with the directions on the ballot-paper; or

(ii) contain offensive or obscene material;

(f) the how-to-vote card must contain the endorsement 'Registered by the Electoral Commission of South Australia' at the bottom of the card.

(6) Despite subsection (5)(d)(iii)—

(a) if an initial submitted how-to-vote card in relation to a candidate is of a kind referred to in subsection (5)(c)(i), a how-to-vote card submitted for registration by or on behalf of the candidate under this section may suggest that a vote should be recorded by a voter in the manner described in subsection (5)(c)(ii); or

(b) if an initial submitted how-to-vote card in relation to a candidate is of a kind referred to in subsection (5)(c)(ii), a how-to-vote card submitted for registration by or on behalf of the candidate under this section may suggest that the voter indicate all preferences in accordance with subsection (5)(c)(i); or

(c) if an initial submitted how-to-vote card in relation to a candidate is a split how-to-vote card, a how-to-vote card submitted for registration by or on behalf of the candidate under this section may suggest that a vote should be recorded by a voter in accordance with either of the 2 alternative orders of preferences indicated in the 2 voting tickets; or

(d) if an initial submitted how-to-vote card in relation to a candidate is not a split how-to-vote card, a how-to-vote card submitted for registration by or on behalf of the candidate under this section may be a split a how-to-vote card,

(but the how-to-vote card submitted for registration must otherwise have substantially the same appearance as the initial submitted how-to-vote card).

(7) If a how-to-vote card is—

(a) submitted for registration—

(i) by or on behalf of any candidate or candidates; or

(ii) by a person; and

(b) registered under this section,

no further how-to-vote card may be submitted for registration under this section—

(c) by or on behalf of that candidate or any of those candidates; or

(d) by that person,

(as the case may be).

(8) As soon as is reasonably practicable after registering a how-to-vote card under this section, and in any event by no later than 5 p.m. on the day on which the prescribed period ends, the Electoral Commissioner must—

(a) make a copy of the card available for inspection at the office of the Electoral Commission; and

(b) publish a copy of the card on a website maintained by the Electoral Commissioner.

(9) For the purposes of this section, how-to-vote cards will be taken to have substantially the same appearance if the cards are identical except for—

(a) the size or shape of the cards; or

(b) the fonts used in the cards; or

(c) the material or medium on which the cards are printed or published; or

(d) any other matter prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(10) In this section—

prescribed period, in relation to an election, means the period commencing on the day after the day fixed for the nomination and ending at noon on the 8th calendar day before polling day for the election (regardless of whether that day is a public holiday);

split how-to-vote card, in relation to a how-to-vote card submitted by or on behalf of a candidate in respect of whom 2 voting tickets have been lodged under section 63, means a how-to-vote card that suggests that a vote should be recorded by a voter in accordance with either of the 2 alternative orders of preferences indicated in the 2 voting tickets (by setting out on the 1 card both of those 2 orders in 2 representations of the ballot paper to which the card relates).

Note—

Section 112A provides for an offence of distributing, during the election period for an election, a how-to-vote card that has not been registered under this section, or submitted for inclusion in posters under section 66.

My understanding is that this is consequential on [Wade-3] 1 or [Wade-5] 1, depending on which one you are looking at.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I had filed under [Parnell-2] 2 a 14A and a 14B. My 14A relates to Robson rotation; that is consequential and I will not be moving that because we have dealt with that question. My 14B relates to the ability to include open tickets in the poster under section 66 of the Electoral Act. That matter has been covered by the Liberal amendment, so I do not think I need to move that amendment as well, but I understood that the minister might have had some comments to make about the problem I had identified as well.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to make some comments on the matter that the Hon. Mark Parnell raises, even though he is not pursuing his amendment. Currently, I am advised, regulation 9(1)(a)(iv)(F) provides that in the case of a House of Assembly election the posters must include, immediately before the surname of all candidates contesting a House of Assembly election, figures surrounded by a square indicating the order of preference the candidate recommends for each candidate.

While the government is concerned to maintain the maximum possible enfranchisement on election day, we recognise what the Hon. Mark Parnell was seeking to achieve. Our concern was that someone failing to read the instructions completely will cast a vote seemingly in line with the instructions provided and end up with the ballot cast being deemed informal or not counted. So, we have discussed the Hon. Mark Parnell's proposed amendment that he is not proceeding with, and what he is seeking to achieve, and the government believes that any change to allow an open ticket to be distributed should be set by regulation for consistency with existing provisions regarding the Legislative Council. As such, the government has provided a draft regulation for the Hon. Mr Parnell's consideration and this undertaking to address the matter through regulation makes this amendment redundant, hence we are not proceeding with it.

The CHAIR: I understand that honourable members want to make contributions but we are now making contributions to amendments and clauses that do not exist. The Hon. Mr Parnell, I will indulge you briefly.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, very briefly. I thank the minister for her contribution. Whilst we are dealing with this bill on the run, I think the issue may well have been resolved. I take from what the minister said that if it turns out that there are still some unintended consequences, the minister's commitment is to have a look at the regulations and check that it does achieve what the minister said which was to enable open tickets to be included, provided they have sufficient direction. But if it is already completely covered and I am barking up the wrong tree, I am happy to be told.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: While the minister is taking advice—

The CHAIR: Hang on a second, Hon. Mr Wade. We are now seeking information on amendments that have not been moved and waiting for a response from the minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the matter has been dealt with in one of the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendments and, therefore, we believe it is unnecessary to have to address that in regulations.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I simply make the point that in spite of my teasing remarks to the honourable member, I do not think it is unhelpful to have these things put on the record. We often have dialogue between the houses. This sort of information can inform that dialogue.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 15 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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