HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POLITICAL PARTY REGISTRATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade:

That the regulations made under the Electoral Act 1985 concerning registration of political parties, made on 29 September 2011 and laid on the table of this council on 18 October 2011, be disallowed.

(Continued from 4 April 2012.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:23): This is a motion to disallow regulations made under the Electoral Act that—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —impose new obligations on political parties to prove their entitlement to remain registered. These requirements are certainly more onerous than those that have existed in the past, and that is at the heart of the Hon. Stephen Wade's motion to disallow these regulations.

There are two approaches that can be taken to this question: the first one is a political, pragmatic approach, and the second approach is one that is more rooted in democratic principles. From a pragmatic, political approach, one might want to look at the list of political parties that do not have parliamentary representation and at which ones do or do not preference you or your party, and then work out whether it is reasonable to make those groups jump through various hoops.

That may be the approach—and I am not saying it is—the government has taken, but it is certainly not the approach the Greens are taking to this question. We are going to be supporting the disallowance motion because we believe that it is unreasonable for these small parties to have to spend what I estimate is at least $1,000 a year in satisfying the requirement not only to provide evidence that you have 200 members but to get the signatures of those people on a document to the Electoral Commission to prove that you are entitled to still be a political party because you have 200 members but not a sitting member of parliament.

I say it would cost thousands because, as we all know, you would probably need to send out twice as many letters as you require responses because people are busy and they often do not respond to their mail. People often join political parties because they want to make a bit of a statement of support but they do not necessarily want to be involved in the day-to-day administration of a party and they are certainly not interested in filling out unnecessary forms. To get your 200 signatures you would need to send out 400 or 500 letters and you would probably need to provide return envelopes as well. So, it is an onerous obligation on these small parties.

I want to put on the record the currently registered parties in South Australia that will need to go through this rigmarole: the Australian Democrats (I think they are at the heart of this issue, certainly the former attorney-general made no secret of his dislike for the Australian Democrats and was keen to do whatever he could to make their collective lives a misery); the Shooters Party; the Stormy Summers Reform Party; One Nation SA Division; Freedom, Rights, Environment, Educate Australia Party (the so-called FREE Party); the Save RAH Party (I would be very surprised if they contest the next election, I think that horse has well and truly bolted, but nevertheless they would be caught by this because they are currently registered); the Democratic Labor Party (a party that we all thought was long gone but they now have, I think for the first time in 20 or so years, a senator representing Victoria); Gamers 4 Croydon (I do not know whether they are still active); the United Party—Water, Housing, Health Care; the Fair Land Tax—Tax Party; the South Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party; and the Liberal Democratic Party. That is the list that is on the Electoral Commission website, dated 28 July 2011.

If we were simply to take a pragmatic approach, we would look at those parties and where they send their preferences. Some people might think it is reasonable to make their lives more difficult, but that is not the point in a democracy. Everyone has the right to form collective organisations and to run candidates at election time, and I do not think it is democratic to be putting undue hurdles in the way of those parties maintaining their electoral registration.

In supporting the disallowance motion I would echo the Hon. Stephen Wade's plea to the government, which is to think again and come back with another set of regulations that can still have a threshold membership. There is no problem with having to have a certain number of members before you are a recognised political party, but let us get rid of this idea that you have to get 200 of your members to sign a document every single year, at great expense, and send it in. There are much simpler ways of proving membership and there are other ways of validating membership, if in fact the numbers are brought into question. With those brief comments, the Greens will be supporting the disallowance motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:28): In conclusion, the Electoral Act was amended in 2009 to allow more rigorous processes to be prescribed for regulation of political parties seeking to retain official registration. This set of amendments, as I mentioned in my previous contribution, were an amendment to that and introduced what we regard as onerous administrative burdens on minor political parties to achieve the annual renewal of their status.

As I indicated in my disallowance motion moved on 14 March, these requirements are unfair and burdensome. The practical effect will be the significant shutting out of what I referred to as micro parties, parties that do not have parliamentary representation. For many such parties, submitting 200 signatures each year on forms declaring membership within the period of the return would be an arduous task. This requirement is grossly out of touch with the operation of many political parties, which often offer two year memberships.

The Hon. Mr Kandelaars, on behalf of the government, responded on a previous occasion by claiming that the purpose of the regulations was to prevent disingenuous political parties from springing up immediately before elections. What is disingenuous is that assertion. These regulations are about renewal of registration, not new applicants for registration.

The initial registration for micro-parties is still covered by the rigorous process outlined in the act, and surely any party seeking to renew its registration suggests that it has at least some commitment to ongoing political involvement.

I want to advise the council that I have written to the Electoral Commissioner to obtain her views on the effect of the disallowance. Out of respect to the commissioner and to this council, I propose to read that letter onto the record in full. On 4 May 2012 the commissioner wrote to me as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 26 April 2012 advising of your motion to disallow the electoral regulations and seeking my advice on the likely impact.

While you advise that your main focus is in relation to the registration of political parties, I have some concerns regarding the time frame involved in reintroducing the other regulations. The regulations primarily relate to election activities and come into effect during the period of an election. However, regulation 5 prescribes the authorities which can access electoral roll data and without a regulation I would be unable to release any information to the sheriff for jury lists, SAPOL for criminal investigations etc. Act the day-to-day operations of the state.

If I can pause there, in response to the commissioner's letter, that comment indicates that she does not appreciate that this is a disallowance only for the amending regulations, not for the 2009 regulations. Her letter continues:

With direct reference to the regulations pertaining to the registration of political parties I would like to offer the following.

The 2009 legislative amendments envisaged certain documents would be provided with the Annual Return (5B) by the registered officer of a registered party by 30 September each year. If the disallowance motion is supported by parliament, I would have no legislative backing to specify the content of accompanying documents. In fact, without accompanying regulations, the registered officer of an alleged registered political party would only need to forward a statement of continuing eligibility for the purposes of the Annual Return and I would be unable to determine the party's eligibility as the Electoral Act 1985 intended. The removal of the relevant regulations would cause ambiguity in the application of the law and raises the prospect of legal challenges.

Under the transitional provision of the principal act, section 43A will become operational on 30 September 2012, with the first Annual Returns due by this date. It is my intention to advise the registered officers of the new legislative requirements well in advance of this time frame to afford them the opportunity to gather required documents.

The anecdotal evidence suggests that many small non-parliamentary parties tend to register to contest an election in the year before a general election is scheduled. As you are aware, the next state general elections are due in March 2014—

The commissioner is very right to indicate how aware we are of that date; 24 March is indeed the date for the next state general election. I will read that sentence in full:

As you are aware, the next state general elections are due in March 2014, and I would be very concerned should there be any ambiguity regarding the registration of political parties come 2013.

Regulations 5A as it currently stands would not impose any undue hardship to administer with a person not being able to be relied upon for membership by more than one party.

Similarly Regulation 5C provides me with the legislative support to investigate any potential issues, as the act is not provide me directly with investigative powers.

Apart from a courtesy paragraph at the end, that is the end of the letter. I should stress to the commissioner and indicate to the government that the opposition does not object to the bulk of the amending regulation; it is merely this burdensome requirement for the submission of the 200 forms every year.

A key concern raised by the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the prospect of the disallowance was the time frame in promulgating fresh regulations. On this matter, the ball is in the government's court. If this council considers that the regulation should be disallowed, the government could promulgate new regulations tomorrow.

We have also sought to bring this to a vote in such a time frame as to allow four months before annual returns are required to be lodged if the government is expeditious in issuing new regulations—and, as I said, we are only objecting to one clause and it would not take long to fix. The regulation could be in place well before the annual returns are required, in plenty of time for the Electoral Commissioner to indicate to parties what the requirements are.

This should prove no problem to parties who currently have a member of parliament, as it is clear what the expectations on these parties will be; but it is the micro parties that we believe need to be given a fair playing field. They should not be exempted from the requirements of the act. Those hurdles, particularly at the first registration phase, are not insignificant, and we as a parliament endorse those requirements.

Another concern raised by the commissioner in her letter was that regulation 5 prescribes the authorities which can access electoral roll data and, without a regulation, she is concerned that she will be unable to release any information to the Sheriff for jury lists, SAPOL for criminal investigations and the like. However, with all due respect (and I have consulted the Clerk on this issue), the commissioner perhaps is under the misunderstanding that the effect of the disallowance would be to disallow the existing regulations under the Electoral Act. In fact, the effect of the disallowance is only to disallow the new regulations—the new 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) that went in at the end of 2011.

Regulation 5(c) prescribes the class of persons to whom confidentiality provisions do not apply in relation to the provision of information obtained through party registration processes. The regulations exclude the Crown Solicitor, police officers and employees of an administrative unit that is under the minister responsible for the administration of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act engaged in the investigation of an offence against the Electoral Act. So, information provided under 5(c) is only in relation to purposes connected with the operation or administration of the act and is only in relation to material provided to the Electoral Commissioner for registration purposes.

In other words, regulation 5(c) allows the provision of otherwise confidential information relating to the political party registration to authorities involved in the investigation of breaches of the Electoral Act. It is not to be confused with the ability of the commissioner to provide information from the electoral roll to police, the Sheriff, deputy sheriffs and Sheriff's officers, the Minister for Health, the SA Superannuation Board and the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Incorporation, which continues to happen under section 27(a) of the act, as I have previously raised.

When political party representation was being debated through the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill in 2009, then attorney-general Michael Atkinson moved an amendment to lower the registration requirements from 500 to 100. I understand that was a concession to the National Party. Interestingly, the Nationals are also a party that would be adversely affected by these regulations. Thankfully, the then attorney-general backed down from his original proposals, which would have almost certainly annihilated almost every micro party in the state. The then attorney-general went on to say:

The government accepts that increasing the minimum number will make it more difficult for new political parties to obtain registration and, indeed, that was the intention.

In 2009, the government amendment bill sought to prevent so-called 'disingenuous parties' from springing up before an election by putting a six-month ban on the processing of registration applications. That change was defeated in this place. Perhaps the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars was referring to this intent when he expressed his concern about parties springing up immediately before an election. The Labor Party has repeatedly demonstrated that it treats the very existence of other political parties with contempt.

This is an unnecessary and unfair burden on micro parties and a blatant attempt by the government to shut out voices that it does not want to hear. It is really no surprise that the government does not want these parties around, given the number of reasons it has given the community to feel discontented and unhappy. Accordingly, the Liberal Party has put this disallowance regulation. I thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and the Hon. Mark Parnell for their contributions to this debate, and I seek the support of the council.

Motion carried.

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