Page 958 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposed new sections, to refuse to hand over printed roll extracts, or electronic roll extracts, to a person. That absolute discretion is reduced to a discretion which occurs where the commissioner "believes on reasonable grounds that the extract would be used otherwise than for an approved purpose within the meaning of section 57".
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, quite appropriate that a person have a right to have access to that information, unless there is some reasonable basis on which the commissioner might exclude access to it. Obviously, there will be sensitivity about how the information is used. I concede that it is important that the commissioner not hand over the information, for example, to commercial companies whose object is to send people letters about why they need a certain set of steak knives; but it is important that the process whereby electors and candidates have access to that information is not interrupted. I believe that the appropriate onus should be on the commissioner to find some positive basis on which he or she believes that the information should not be supplied.
Obviously, the commissioner will be in a position where a request is made to him or her and the application is processed. The commissioner will have certain information at his or her disposal and must make a decision. I believe that it is appropriate to make it clear that the commissioner must have some clear evidence or indication, some good reason, for wanting to refuse that application. As these proposed new sections are presently drafted, he or she has a further discretion than that - a discretion to refuse it without really having those reasonable grounds for belief. That is inappropriate, and my amendments fix that.
MR MOORE (5.14): Madam Speaker, after considering Mr Humphries's proposed amendments and discussing them with Ms Szuty, we determined that we would not support them. Mr Humphries raises a number of quite important issues. The first of those, I think, is that there is, under proposed new section 57, a penalty of a $5,000 fine or six months' imprisonment, or both, for the misuse of the electoral roll. He argues that that is enough to ensure that the electoral roll is not misused. It seems to me though, Madam Speaker, after receiving a quite large amount of unsolicited mail addressed to my home over the last year or so - the only place that the address could have come from is the electoral roll - that it is appropriate that we tighten up the system. It seems to me that, should somebody who wishes to run for the Assembly seek to have a printed extract, they would be able to get it, with a couple of exceptions that Mr Humphries has drawn attention to. On balance, Madam Speaker, comparing the right of people not to get this sort of unsolicited mail, as just one example, against the right of a candidate who is running without a party, I have determined that I would come down on the side of opposing these amendments.
MS SZUTY (5.16): Mr Humphries drew attention to the fact that the commissioner at the moment has a very large discretion as to whether the electoral roll will be made available to certain people. I notice that the Government has foreshadowed some amendments that we might be dealing with, should Mr Humphries's amendment not be passed. That indicates to me that the Government has recognised that the commissioner shall supply roll extracts, basically, as a matter of course, unless he has any particular reason not to. In doing as Mr Moore has done - balancing the arguments that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .