Bills

Electoral (Limitation on Display of Electoral Advertisements) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:01): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a very simple bill and I think members may have seen a little bit of it in the media and have a sense of what is trying to be achieved here. Just prior to the last state election, I made a public commitment that I would move a bill in this place. My public words were to the effect that I would seek to have a situation where no corflutes were used by political parties, but since, in discussions I have had with various people represented in this and the other place, have found that that is not likely to succeed and pass this house or indeed the other house, so for that reason the bill before the chamber today seeks to limit the number of corflutes per lower house seat to 100.

How is that defined? It is 100 per party or Independent in any given seat. To give an example, in the case of Family First, we run lower house candidates in each seat and we also have Legislative Council candidates. Let us take the seat of Adelaide, for example: we would be able to have 100 Family First corflutes, either promoting our Legislative Council candidates or our House of Assembly candidate for that particular seat. It is as simple as that—nothing more complex than that. There are a variety of reasons why we should proceed down that path, and I will make a brief contribution outlining it in a little more detail.

This bill introduces provisions into the Electoral Act to limit the number of corflutes allocated in an electoral district to 100 per person, political party or Independent. Just prior to the March state election I publicly stated that I would introduce a bill to alter the way in which corflutes are used in electoral campaigning. This bill is the satisfaction of that electoral promise.

At the outset, I state that Family First has had extensive consultation on this particular issue with interested stakeholders, including obviously other political parties and Independents. We recognise that corflutes are largely an outdated method of political communication, which therefore should be limited. There is a simple amendment that will bring what we believe to be a fair and more visually attractive system of political advertising in this state.

There can be no doubt that the use of corflutes have proliferated in recent times. In years gone by it was not uncommon to see a corflute affixed to one in 10 poles, or maybe one in 20 poles on a major road. Now we have corflutes virtually on every pole on every major road (or even minor roads) and in every street, in the metropolitan area at least, during elections. There is no reason for such prolific advertising. The way in which corflute advertising is undertaken is nothing more than visual pollution, in my view, on some occasions. It is undeniable; there simply are more corflutes erected than are required.

In an environment where it is estimated that 80 per cent of Australians access the internet daily, it is incredible to think that we still advocate such prolific use of corflutes as a primary method of communication during electoral campaigns. As Leon Byner commented on his program—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Hood is having great difficulty talking over a conversation that is in the chamber. I give the call to the Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Mr Acting President, for your protection. I was feeling a little vulnerable at the time. I appreciate your protection. In an environment where it is estimated that 80 per cent of Australians access the internet daily, it is incredible to think that we still advocate such prolific use of corflutes as a primary method of communication during elections. As Leon Byner commented on his program on 4 March 2014, 'Why do we still reward political parties with positions on Stobie poles when they should be in the modern world and put out more information on the candidate photo on their website?'

I have to say I tend to agree with that position. There is no reason why the majority of political advertising cannot be done by other means, particularly online, on television, on radio or whatever it may be. The sheer number of corflutes erected on virtually every Stobie pole becomes a visual distraction for drivers as well. This is something that Family First considers absolutely must be addressed, as incidents of road traffic accidents are already far too high.

To all intents and purposes, these corflutes provide the general public with little, if any, relevant information about the candidate who is actually standing. There is no information placed on the corflute about the candidate, usually, or their policies or the political track record of that individual or their party. All you are guaranteed to get is the name of the person and the party running.

As we saw recently with a number of corflutes, they sometimes do not even say what individuals expect them to say and can be somewhat misleading. Corflutes are used to try to increase recognition of a person or party and frankly, there are better ways to do this with less potential for harm or distraction to drivers. Corflutes represent nothing more than political advertising that can distract drivers and certainly can be visually annoying to residents and those passing through those areas (in the case of my photo, probably more than most).

In addition to the visual pollution corflutes can create, one cannot ignore the issue of environmental pollution. Corflutes are frequently forcibly removed or fall down from their fixture, and it is not uncommon to see corflutes on the side of the road, in the gutter or caught in the bushes or something like that. As you know, corflutes are in fact a corrugated plastic made of polypropylene resin, a substance which does not break down. We have a responsibility to look after our environment and not cause undue harm, where possible. The elimination of corflutes will go a small way towards that objective.

There can be no argument that corflutes are subject to dirty tricks as well by members or supporters of some political parties, and of course when these matters are drawn to each other's attention no-one seems to no what happened or how it could have possibly happened. For instance, it is not uncommon for parties to put up their corflutes before the midnight deadline of commencement, effectively preventing other parties that have abided by the deadline from fixing their corflute to any pole which already has a corflute affixed, in a bid to secure some political advantage.

In years gone by, Family First has had hundreds of corflutes stolen in the lead-up to state elections, in a bid to score political points for our opponents, presumably, or just by misguided members of the public. I am sure that there are other members who can attest to these sorts of things happening to their corflutes as well. It is not just an issue for our party, I am sure.

Accordingly, corflutes also increase the barriers to minor parties entering the political process. Naturally, when corflutes are removed, there is a cost involved. There is also a replacement cost that cannot easily be met by all parties. Whether or not this is a deliberate tactic by some, or simply avid supporters of opposing parties or people doing silly things, it is not clear.

By limiting the number of corflutes that any person or party can erect, parties with limited financial resources will have access to the same amount of political advertising as those with larger resources. I point out that the funding of corflutes is not a difficulty for Family First. It is something that we can easily do, but I think in the interests of fairness it is something we should consider.

Mr Chris Russell from the Local Government Association has publicly said that councils get a lot of complaints about corflutes. Whilst the LGA does not have a formal position on the banning of corflutes, it is something that certainly holds appeal to them, as they have said themselves, due to the number of times that the rules pertaining to corflutes are broken during the campaign.

Speaking to Leon Byner on 4 March 2014, Mr Chris Russell recalled an issue whereby a corflute was placed on a flagpole at a veterans' memorial garden. Naturally, the placement of this corflute caused outrage amongst the veteran community. The owner of the poster denied responsibility and accused an opponent of skulduggery. Who knows what really happened? We will never know. Admittedly, there could have been numerous ways in which this corflute found its way onto the flagpole, but that is not really the issue. The issue is that, as Mr Russell rightly points out, council officers' time is best spent promoting safety and helping the community, not taking arguments between political candidates about who moved what poster when and where.

Family First believes in limiting the number of corflutes or that even banning them, ideally—this is the first step perhaps towards that goal—should form part of a major debate about reform. I believe this bill presents a simple way in which we can begin to fashion a much fairer and relevant system for political communication for all involved. A limitation of corflutes will facilitate other technologies, address the issue of visual and ecological pollution, and help to minimise opportunities for skulduggery. It is time to clear away the gamesmanship around elections and spend our political energy where it is most needed.

I might make two other quick points, if I may. The first one is that the Speaker in the other place, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, as I think as everyone in this place would be well aware, does not use corflutes. Indeed, he refuses to use corflutes, and yet I understand his primary vote was approaching 70 per cent at the last election. He achieved an outstanding result, really, without corflutes.

At the other end of the spectrum, and I mean no disrespect to this group, but the Multicultural Party, which contested the last election in the Legislative Council, I understand had a number of corflutes across the state which was similar to the major parties, so very high numbers of corflutes right across the state. They received if not the lowest (I am just doing this from memory) the second lowest—one of the two—vote for any of the groups contesting the Legislative Council election. So, the simple fact as well is that corflutes do not work. They just simply do not work.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The interjections on my right are out of order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It may be a reminder, and so that is why we think this bill finds a good middle ground: 100 posters in each lower house seat is a lot still, plenty enough to remind people who is standing and what party they are in so they will not forget.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: There is an interjection which is out of order, so I will not respond to that, but I understand that some of them have hundreds and hundreds in other areas isolated virtually on every pole. I think all of us would agree it is just not necessary. If there was some sort of limit in place for fairness for each group contesting the election, then I think everyone wins, and for that reason I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.